unethical careers

[1338 h4x0r]

So we can more or less agree on what the most ethical careers are. With little if any ambiguity, there's candidates like Doctors without Borders, social workers, firemen, paramedics, etc.

Now here's a different question: what are the most unethical careers? In particular, I'd like to see if anyone can top the vast array of opportunities for filthy lucre in the military-industrial complex.

Go go go

[McP3000]

Forum Administrator

[1338 h4x0r]

haha

but seriously

[mph4ever]

president of america

[1338 h4x0r]

All Presidents of the USA or just Bush II?

(btw, I can't become the President for various reasons.)

[McP3000]

Well, this might be a different spin on the topic, but i would say most government workers in non-authoritative positions.
Not that the actual people are bad, but they are required to perform their jobs emotionless and strictly according to regulation. This often entails leaving people bankrupt, traumatized, or just a bad mood.

ill think of some others, but in reality there aren't many inherently unethical jobs, just unethical people who perform the jobs.

edit: mph4ever, this is what im talking about

if anything the President of the United States is inherently ethical. (the position that is, but even talking about Bush, he is an EXTREMELY ethical and good person...its just his..."policies")

[1338 h4x0r]

Not that the actual people are bad, but they are required to perform their jobs emotionless and strictly according to regulation. This often entails leaving people bankrupt, traumatized, or just a bad mood.

This is true. However, these jobs do not cripple and kill people. The bureaucracy can contribute to creeping insanity though, I guess.

[McP3000]

well, not physical damage obviously. Just mental and economical.

Like if you went to your local convience store and said "I'm short 30 cents, is that alright?" the guy would let you go and smile.

A government worker would punish you legally, even if it was against his own will.

[Jharaski]

Lawyers. Sure, there are plenty of good ones, but...

-You might have to prosecute someone you know to be innocent (remember that thread from 2 months ago?)
-You might defend someone you know to have killed someone and will do it again

In these cases, you have to apply "justice" even though you KNOW you are causing harm by doing it. And personal injury lawyers? Most are scum.

[mph4ever]

All Presidents of the USA or just Bush II?


him and a few others. reagan, bush senior, clinton, few more, too many maybe


(btw, I can't become the President for various reasons.)



oooh, ooooh, ooooh, i love these " what am i?" guessing games

ok, you can't become president for various reasons. i'm going to guess you are black democrat, or democrat and female. or maybe just black and female

am i right, am i? am i?

[1338 h4x0r]

Well, let me clarify. I'm not talking about 'douchebag' or even 'shitbag' levels of unethical careers. I mean unethical careers on the HOLY **** magnitude.

An example I was reading today:

http://gainesjunction.tamu.edu/issues/vol2num1/msaberian.pdf

Some have argued that the “fire bomb is primarily an antipersonnel weapon.”26 So, what kind of effect does napalm have on human beings? Napalm casualties result from heat related injuries and carbon monoxide poisoning. Napalm’s adhesive qualities and high temperature of combustion usually cause third degree-burns, often burning into the muscle tissue or even the bone. Particles from the white phosphorous burster tube may contaminate the wound. The particles will continue to burn within the victim and are very difficult to remove. In addition, napalm burns cause other injuries: dehydration, heat stroke, renal failure, and shock, which may precipitate death. Victims may also succumb to heatstroke from the ambient air without any direct contact with the attack.27 An explosive aerial bomb, on the other hand, causes wounds by way of the percussive force in the blast zone, shrapnel, or debris.

Very few of these injuries precipitate a quick death. Anthony Carthew reporting for the New Republic captured the essence of the weapon when he said “The most horrible thing about napalm and white phosphorous: though the body is virtually drowned in flame, the victim tends to live.”28

Yes, to that degree.

oooh, ooooh, ooooh, i love these " what am i?" guessing games

ok, you can't become president for various reasons. i'm going to guess you are black democrat, or democrat and female. or maybe just black and female

am i right, am i? am i?

I'm a white male but:


Not rich
Not old enough
Mildly autistic and unable to grasp politicking
Generally honest
Cynical


etc.

[DBoons Ghost]

Ethics change from each individual so this topic is retarded in a way.

[1338 h4x0r]

OK, I'll use an objective criterion: "career that produces most mangled bodies"

[DBoons Ghost]

I fail to see how that is unethical. The object of warfare is to destroy the enemy. If you disagree with war itself, so be it. However, developing and building weapons of mass destruction is not unethical, nor immoral.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I'm a door-to-door salesman.

[1338 h4x0r]

I fail to see how that is unethical. The object of warfare is to destroy the enemy. If you disagree with war itself, so be it. However, developing and building weapons of mass destruction is not unethical, nor immoral.

What about all those civilians

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0

AWESOME

I'm torn between 'military-industrial complex' and 'unscrupulous chemical industry'. I need suggestions here.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I fail to see how that is unethical. The object of warfare is to destroy the enemy. If you disagree with war itself, so be it. However, developing and building weapons of mass destruction is not unethical, nor immoral.

Killing another human being is immoral. Ergo, building the weapons to kill human beings is immoral.

[1338 h4x0r]

That works. But what if more lives are saved because of the weapon? That's a problem and I am faced with a dilemma

If I go into an industry that profits by not cleaning up its byproducts and leaving them wherever it wants (usually in poor countries these days where no one pays attention), then I stand a pretty good chance of killing people horribly, but through negligence rather than malice

If I go into the military-industrial complex somewhere, then I stand a really good chance of killing people through malice and violence, but then there is also the chance that a war might save lives overall.

I'll have to think about making a game matrix for this and finding its value but I'm really not sure how to fill in the numbers yet.

[DBoons Ghost]

What about all those civilians

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ev2dEqrN4i0

AWESOME

I'm torn between 'military-industrial complex' and 'unscrupulous chemical industry'. I need suggestions here.

You Tube is blocked for me at work so I can't watch it. Could you provide me some detail?

I am against war myself but I understand it. So if you're trying to get me to give a crap about dead civvies it won't happen.

[RockAndRoll]

Lawyers. Sure, there are plenty of good ones, but...

-You might have to prosecute someone you know to be innocent (remember that thread from 2 months ago?)
-You might defend someone you know to have killed someone and will do it again

In these cases, you have to apply "justice" even though you KNOW you are causing harm by doing it. And personal injury lawyers? Most are scum.

If people didn't have the right to representation or if lawyers had no obligations to their clients then the justice system would be screwed.

Also the lawyers in that thread two months ago weren't prosecuting the innocent guy. And if a lawyer knows their client is going to commit a crime they still have to report it, clients aren't protected from that. (At least in Canada.) So your examples don't really work.

[DBoons Ghost]

Killing another human being is immoral. Ergo, building the weapons to kill human beings is immoral.

Well, I don't think killing another human being with circumstances is immoral. It is against the law, but the law is justice, not morality at work.

I'm not much for bleeding heart rubbish. I just don't get how someone could say something is unethical when that depends on the ethics of the individual.

[mph4ever]

OK, I'll use an objective criterion: "career that produces most mangled bodies"

pilot on enola gay

inquisitors were good at this type of job also

car manufacturers that know they have sub standard safety specifications

[1338 h4x0r]

You Tube is blocked for me at work so I can't watch it. Could you provide me some detail?


Magnificent napalm/white phosphorus burst
Little kids running away from it, screaming hysterically
Old woman holding child whose skin and clothes are peeling off like birch bark ... this was the best part of the video


I am against war myself but I understand it. So if you're trying to get me to give a crap about dead civvies it won't happen.

Good because I'm not.

inquisitors were good at this type of job also

I don't believe in (a moral) God so that's out for me.

car manufacturers that know they have sub standard safety specifications

Hm, interesting. Being an unscrupulous operations researcher might be fun.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Well, I don't think killing another human being with circumstances is immoral. It is against the law, but the law is justice, not morality at work.

I'm not much for bleeding heart rubbish. I just don't get how someone could say something is unethical when that depends on the ethics of the individual.

You support the death penalty?

[Smokey D]

Lawyers get such a bad rap for being unethical when the internal ethics of the legal profession are probably among the strictest in the working world. Lawyers and other legal professionals are bound by some pretty strict rules to conduct themselves in certain ways and there are some pretty serious consequences for breaching them (you can't become a lawyer, at least in NZ, if you've been convicted of a crime for example). There is some pretty strong normative pressure to abide by these rules even if you won't be caught.

But even the most ethical system won't necessarily produce the most beneficial, equitable or desirable result everytime.

[1338 h4x0r]

There is some pretty strong normative pressure to abide by these rules even if you won't be caught.


Hm. You must have better lawyers than the shitwads we have here in the woods of Pennsyltucky.

But anyway, I'm still stuck: which is more unethical, working for the military-industrial complex or a heartless chemical manufacturer?

[Reaganista]

most people watch boston legal or wat have you and think it's a documentary/exposé

[PerpetualBurn]

When a professional is accused of being unethical, it usually means that they've breached their profession's coded system of rules, and committed some form of misconduct.

It's ambiguous to say that a professional is "unethical" because a certain practice may seem immoral to us as individuals. Morality and ethics are somewhat distinct in certain senses.

The best example of this being the above reference to lawyers. Lawyers are very strictly tied to a system of professional conduct by which they all accept is most conducive to a fair and just legal system.

In the example of the thread we had a while back, the lawyers were unable to incriminate their own client and thus an innocent man was tried separately and falsely convicted. While this might seem a moral dilemma for the lawyers as individuals, their silence was not unethical. It was the action which when carried out as a rule for the profession provides the best and fairest system of defence for all people in need of legal aid.

Another example would be of doctor's ethical struggle with euthanasia. It may seem moral to some of us to end the suffering of a terminal patient, it can be argued as an unethical action if performed by a doctor who has been sworn into the profession on the basis that they will strive to preserve life.

[1338 h4x0r]

Truer words have never been spoken.

[McP3000]

pennsyltucky?

[Reaganista]

pennsyltucky is where hilary voters live

[mph4ever]

pigs are unethical, rotten to the core

[1338 h4x0r]

Yeah, I hate cops as well, but I sure as hell am not going to become one. I like jobs where I have to think logically and use creative problem-solving so, naturally, serving on the police force, at least at the local level, is right out. At the state or federal level, there's still some pretense of justice. I find the law incredibly unappealing. When it's wrong, it's ****ing stupid, and when it's right, it's fair! What could be worse?

Again, a specific question remains unresolved:

But anyway, I'm still stuck: which is more unethical, working for the military-industrial complex or a heartless chemical manufacturer?

[DBoons Ghost]

You support the death penalty?

Yes.

[Polyshka]

In my town the police have virtually no crime to deal with. They're job is attending to domestic disturbances which are usually nothing. Other than that they just drive around eating food. That sounds like a fantastic job. And there are no fires, so the firemen just sit around in the firehouse playing cards.

[spitfirejunky]

Yeah, I hate cops as well, but I sure as hell am not going to become one. I like jobs where I have to think logically and use creative problem-solving so, naturally, serving on the police force, at least at the local level, is right out.

Depends what kind of cop.

[1338 h4x0r]

In my town the police have virtually no crime to deal with. They're job is attending to domestic disturbances which are usually nothing. Other than that they just drive around eating food. That sounds like a fantastic job. And there are no fires, so the firemen just sit around in the firehouse playing cards.

Eh, that's kind of cool. I have a job like that now. But what about the low salary and not getting to murder people directly or indirectly? That's gotta be a disadvantage.

Depends what kind of cop.

Well yeah. At the higher end, there are some intelligence-oriented careers in law enforcement but my attitude towards kidnappers, child molesters and terrorists is basically do whatever. I've got lives to ruin myself (even if I choose a legal means).

[Smokey D]

I'm still stuck: which is more unethical, working for the military-industrial complex or a heartless chemical manufacturer?

I don't think ethics is the right word. I bet lots of people working for both the MI complex and in chemicals manufacture are ethical. I bet they are, for the most part, they are good people too.

You can adhere to an ethical code, have desire to do good things and actually produce good in the world when working for either of those industries. But if I had to make a choice, I'd say that a chemical engineer is not directly connected to an industry whose main purpose is death. All things being equal, I suppose bad things (death being bad) are less likely to result from chemicals manufacture.

But it's not clear that the military does not sometimes do good.

[1338 h4x0r]

But if I had to make a choice, I'd say that a chemical engineer is not directly connected to an industry whose main purpose is death. All things being equal, I suppose bad things (death being bad) are less likely to result from chemicals manufacture.

Military-industrial complex it is

THEY'RE HIRING!!!

[Jharaski]

If people didn't have the right to representation or if lawyers had no obligations to their clients then the justice system would be screwed.

Yeah, so lawyers are the necessary evil. I didn't say it'd be better without them.


Also the lawyers in that thread two months ago weren't prosecuting the innocent guy. And if a lawyer knows their client is going to commit a crime they still have to report it, clients aren't protected from that. (At least in Canada.) So your examples don't really work.

I know. Same concept. What I'm getting at here is, say, a serial killer. Killed 50 people. And the lawyer knowwwwws the guy will do it again if acquitted. Again, necessary evil... because like you said, the system would be screwed.

[McP3000]

pigs are unethical, rotten to the core
Cops are great people and upstanding citizens and yet you mock them because of some age old wannabe punk stereotype?

im sorry they took your pot away...they must be evil

[1338 h4x0r]

Cops are great people and upstanding citizens

I LOLed

[McP3000]

Troll Bait

but on a serious note, cops are often given bad raps.

[1338 h4x0r]

Often deservedly.

[DBoons Ghost]

There has to be a ratio of bad cops to good cops and I would think the good cops would prevail.

They all power trip though. Either you respect the authority or you end up in jail on made up charges!

[1338 h4x0r]

They all power trip though. Either you respect the authority or you end up in jail on made up charges!

This is called 'abusive'.

[RockAndRoll]

Yeah, so lawyers are the necessary evil. I didn't say it'd be better without them.
But they're not evil.


I know. Same concept. What I'm getting at here is, say, a serial killer. Killed 50 people. And the lawyer knowwwwws the guy will do it again if acquitted. Again, necessary evil... because like you said, the system would be screwed.
Again if someone knowwwwwws that someone is going to commit a crime they are obligated to report it whether they're a lawyer or not.

Lawyers aren't unethical and it's ridiculous when people start denouncing and insulting lawyers who've been in the unfortunate position of defending a brutal criminal.

[DBoons Ghost]

This is called 'abusive'.

I concur. I've learned how to talk to cops and to respect their wishes and it's worked. So, there is a lesson to be learned. Don't lie to cops, don't go out of your way to disrespect them, and all will be well.

[griftadan]

i hope to work as a lobbyist or political adviser of some sorts some day, pick me

[1338 h4x0r]

Don't lie to cops, don't go out of your way to disrespect them, and all will be well.

Well, the lying is a real criminal offense. There's no law against not being nice and they shouldn't act like there is

[DBoons Ghost]

Well, the lying is a real criminal offense. There's no law against not being nice and they shouldn't act like there is

I agree with you a hundred percent and the last time it happened I flipped out in court and it only ended up costing me another weekend in central bookings which sucked. The whole system will support the lying cop over you.

A cop beat me up pretty bad for nothing. I was sitting in a car that had stolen plates on it and argued that we're on private property in a parking lot and they had no authority there. The car didn't even run but the plates were stolen and I remembered stealing them. Either way, he gave me some of his police baton in the belly. Bruised some ribs. All said and done, they would take the plates and leave us alone. My bystander "friend" who wasn't so swift to life in the hood decides to ask the cop for a badge number so he could file a complaint for police brutality. So he arrested me. When I got to court the charges had changed from possession of stolen property to basically driving a car in possession of stolen property, no license, driving without insurance etc etc..

This is one of many stories. So while I guess the cop was right, I justified it to myself by saying the plate was stolen and I did steal it, so what goes around comes around eventually. You just gotta suck it up.

[DBoons Ghost]

I'm pretty shocked no one has brought up the insurance industry here. Not so much car insurance or life insurance, but imagine being an underwriter calculating risk for TWA or Jet Blue.

Your job is to find a way to not pay people out for the death of their loved ones. Calculating court costs against the payout to a family. Which is cheaper? Which would yield the least risk with the most profit?

Lol.. taken from a NY Time story on Airline Insurance regarding US Aviation Underwriters, who insures the majority of the airline industry:

Apart from its handling of the Pan Am 103 and Pacific Southwest Airlines disasters, the company has been criticized for prying into victims' lives. In a widely publicized case stemming from a 1985 crash of a Delta Air Lines jet in Dallas, lawyers hired by U.S. Aviation dredged up information that a passenger was gay -- a fact unknown to his parents -- in an unsuccessful bid to assert that he was therefore more likely to contract AIDS, which would reduce his life expectancy and thus his future earnings.

Imagine that being your job.

[Jharaski]

But they're not evil.

Defending a man you know to be guilty is evil in its own way, but it's necessary because it's JUSTICE.


Again if someone knowwwwwws that someone is going to commit a crime they are obligated to report it whether they're a lawyer or not.

I wasn't aware of it this way. Wouldn't that be harassment? The police following the guy around after being acquitted?


Lawyers aren't unethical and it's ridiculous when people start denouncing and insulting lawyers who've been in the unfortunate position of defending a brutal criminal.

It's also ridiculous that anyone could muster up the ability to defend someone like that. But again, I totally agree it's better this way than the alternative. Everyone deserves a fair trial, because without one, it can't be proven that you did it. I dunno. I know I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I put a man I knew to be guilty on the streets whether he will do it again or not. That's why I couldn't be a lawyer.

My points are still misunderstood, I see. Because I shouldn't have to explain and defend this.

[<3<3<3]

There's lots of illegal careers which are pretty unethical, such as hitmen, or people who kidnap for ransom.

[1338 h4x0r]

Imagine that being your job.

Sweet ****ing job. I've read that actuaries are #1 in career satisfaction in the US.

There's lots of illegal careers which are pretty unethical, such as hitmen, or people who kidnap for ransom.

There is that small problem of potential incarceration.

[mph4ever]

Cops are great people and upstanding citizens and yet you mock them because of some age old wannabe punk stereotype?

im sorry they took your pot away...they must be evil

don't ever trivialise my relationship with pigs. on this one, there is only one side

authority abused

fu'cken pigs, fu'cken pigs

dirt, scum, sh'it heads

[Avalanche.]

Pimp

Slave Trader

[1338 h4x0r]

Pimp

Slave Trader

Where are these careers legal pray tell?

[Futue te Ipsum]

Lawyers get such a bad rap for being unethical when the internal ethics of the legal profession are probably among the strictest in the working world. Lawyers and other legal professionals are bound by some pretty strict rules to conduct themselves in certain ways and there are some pretty serious consequences for breaching them (you can't become a lawyer, at least in NZ, if you've been convicted of a crime for example). There is some pretty strong normative pressure to abide by these rules even if you won't be caught.

But even the most ethical system won't necessarily produce the most beneficial, equitable or desirable result everytime.it's mostly due to the self serving nature of many claims.

I'll launch hospital admin into the least ethical. Bastards, the lot of them.

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm taking notes

[Avalanche.]

Where are these careers legal pray tell?

Your opening post says nothing about legality, BUT:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hof

Legal Pimp

[Danger Bird]

tobacco exec

[Der Übermensch]

Any ursurer.

[mph4ever]

pope

[J Rad]

So we can more or less agree on what the most ethical careers are. With little if any ambiguity, there's candidates like Doctors without Borders, social workers, firemen, paramedics, etc.

Now here's a different question: what are the most unethical careers? In particular, I'd like to see if anyone can top the vast array of opportunities for filthy lucre in the military-industrial complex.

Go go go

by military-industry are you referring to arms manufacturing and distribution which, i would agree, is short of ethical, or are you referring to the employment training and distribution of troops because i could argue about that one all day

[jaredong]

just gonna play the devil's advocate here and say...

that military and police jobs, though we might be "boo! they're terrible!" are actually very important. It is these people who risk their lives everyday so that we can have the freedom to say they suck. Thats not a v. fair deal right there.

When theres something strange in the neighborhood, who you gonna call? Not the ghostbusters, the cops!

When foreign nations threaten to use their military superiority to browbeat your nation's diplomacy, whatcha gonna do?

some'd say that you need a sizable military.... for peace! because if each nation realizes that going to war would cost to much, then nobody would go to war.

[1338 h4x0r]

by military-industry are you referring to arms manufacturing and distribution which, i would agree, is short of ethical

YES

When foreign nations threaten to use their military superiority to browbeat your nation's diplomacy, whatcha gonna do?

Run down the streets naked screaming "Death to Homo sapiens"

[McP3000]

pope
okay, i could somewhat GLIMPSE the notion that GWB was unethical...but the POPE

are you ****ing insane?

[Der Übermensch]

He's an idiot. Ignore him.

[1338 h4x0r]

okay, i could somewhat GLIMPSE the notion that GWB was unethical...but the POPE

are you ****ing insane?

The Six Most Awful Popes

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/popes-cadaver-synod.php

[J Rad]

YES

k cool i have no arguments then

[1338 h4x0r]

AWESOME

[rasputin]

Executioner

[mph4ever]

okay, i could somewhat GLIMPSE the notion that GWB was unethical...but the POPE

are you ****ing insane?


He's an idiot. Ignore him.



he is not an idiot.....i mean, i am not an idiot. you dismiss this without thought. you have to stop that if you are going to benefit from some of my posts. maybe you should look into it a little.

the pope
infallibility - to the point where no one on earth can question him. thats the most unethical thing ever, most especially when this lack of questioning leads to such things as the inquisition, the crusades, the betrayal of the jews in the ghetto in wwii(remember the nazis said "don't cross the white line" and the pope let it all happen), the denial that the earth was not the centre of the universe when facts proved them wrong and excommunication of people and countries at a whim, the denial of rights to women to become priests, the treatment of nuns, the enforced celibacy of priests so that the catholic church does not have to support their families in the event of premature death, don't pay taxes but expect us to, sits on riches beyond your wildest dreams but let people starve all over the world. christians me hole, unethical to the top.

[Smokey D]

I think papal infalability has been invoked like once since the doctrine was proclaimed.

And also I'd say some of those things you describe are morally wrong, but not necessarily unethical whereas others are just factually wrong and definitely not unethical. But I am willing to be some popes have acted both unethically and unscrupulously.

[mph4ever]

thanks, i have to admit one or two are just rumours, but for the most part i think you will find them to be true

[Smokey D]

I think it's totally ungrounded speculation to say that the reason celibacy is enforced is to avoid having to pay for children.

And while the Church is exceedingly rich and could probably spend a lot more than it does on aid, it does have one of the most extensive charity programmes in the world.

[mph4ever]

I think it's totally ungrounded speculation to say that the reason celibacy is enforced is to avoid having to pay for children.

And while the Church is exceedingly rich and could probably spend a lot more than it does on aid, it does have one of the most extensive charity programmes in the world.

on the second point, i agree, they have extensive charities and also extensive missionaries and these efforts are to be applauded, they could still do more.

on the first one, celibacy was always part of the church. its is written into canon law, it is not a dogma, and as such is open to change. marriage was common but not widespread for sometime in the early church.

this is from www.catholicbridge.com

the writings of the church fathers show that, in the early church, married priests were not the accepted norm in the main centres of alexandria, antioch and rome. they considered it a "problem" that existed in the outlying regions. by the 3rd century there were almost no married priests and several councils put the issue to rest until around the 9th century when many bishops and priests took wives and had children. the state of the priesthood fell to an all time low. a huge problem emerged with priests "willing" church property to their families. up to that point, the principle of celibacy was never completely surrendered in the official enactments of the church. in 1123, celibacy was made official. although, throughout history there have been scattered instances of abuses of the canon law, the roman catholic church has consistently stuck to this position on celibate priests.

perhaps i am a little too zealous with my interpretation. but the above says to me that the risk of priests having kids and then leaving church property to them drove the catholic church to make celibacy mandatory from 1123

[McP3000]

Being the Pope is not inherently unethical, if anything it leans towards inherently ethical.

and within the last 200 years all the popes have been quite short of the greedy, ruthless tyrant label

[Smokey D]

Well given it was Church property and not an individual bishop's property that may have not been a very relevant concern.

I can accept that financial motivations might have once played a part (although probably in addition to other more spiritual ones) but I think it's ludicrous to say that it persists today.

[Reaganista]

the current pope is a nazi

[McP3000]

not really

he just looks funny

[Reaganista]

no he's really a nazi

[mph4ever]

Well given it was Church property and not an individual bishop's property that may have not been a very relevant concern.

I can accept that financial motivations might have once played a part (although probably in addition to other more spiritual ones) but I think it's ludicrous to say that it persists today.

celibacy exists today, the reasons for it may be long lost in the past but one significant factor was inheritence. spirituality was heading out the window, hence the reformation

[Smokey D]

You're really simplifying complex historical processes and messing up timelines to boot.

[mph4ever]

no, your point about spirituality and celibacy was mostly resolved in the 3rd or 4th century. it was only when they got out of hand again in the 9th that things started to go worng. it was the 12th before they did anything about it. it was the 15th by the time it had gotten so bad that the reformation was started. things move slow in the church.

[Der Übermensch]

he is not an idiot.....i mean, i am not an idiot. you dismiss this without thought. you have to stop that if you are going to benefit from some of my posts. maybe you should look into it a little.

the pope
infallibility - to the point where no one on earth can question him. thats the most unethical thing ever, most especially when this lack of questioning leads to such things as the inquisition, the crusades, the betrayal of the jews in the ghetto in wwii(remember the nazis said "don't cross the white line" and the pope let it all happen), the denial that the earth was not the centre of the universe when facts proved them wrong and excommunication of people and countries at a whim, the denial of rights to women to become priests, the treatment of nuns, the enforced celibacy of priests so that the catholic church does not have to support their families in the event of premature death, don't pay taxes but expect us to, sits on riches beyond your wildest dreams but let people starve all over the world. christians me hole, unethical to the top.

See, you are an idiot. Papal Infallibility is NOT automatic, but rather something that is invoked EXTREMELY RARELY. It has been, I believe, invoked once (and also, it was only created in the late 1800's, so I see no bearing on how it connects to the Crusades... or for that matter was Infallibility invoked for a single thing you mentioned there). It doesn't mean that if the Pope says "2+2=5" then all Catholics must believe that. It only applies to matters of essential Catholic dogma (The immaculate conception in the case used). You confuse inerrancy with infallibility (he isn't inerrant, and inerrancy hasn't been part of Church doctrine for a long time).
Certainly specific popes have been unethical... I have my doubts about the current one, but to say the office itself is so tainted is such a horribly broad and uneducated statement, I don't really need to bother refuting it.

[mph4ever]

why idiot, why not something like "no you're wrong and heres why". what have i done to make you so intolerant?

popes have always been infallible. popes are unethical, it comes with the job, they know there is no proof of god yet they continue to support a non truth. they betray their flock with lies and deceit.

anyone who takes up the office must be unethical

[Der Übermensch]

why idiot, why not something like "no you're wrong and heres why". what have i done to make you so intolerant?
Because you are more than simply wrong, which I will explain. Pardon the irony, but if there is anything I am truly intolerant of, it is intolerance, for which you are the goddamn poster child.

popes have always been infallible
This is why you are an idiot. You say this despite my demonstrating it to be patently false. You aren't just wrong. Being wrong is when you say something wrong, are confronted and admit so. Being an idiot is when you are wrong, are confronted, and continue to say you are right without actually trying to back up the statement. The Pope has only officially even had the capacity for infallibility since Vatican I, and has only made an infallible statement once. He is not always infallible, but rather is infallible only when acting under a very specific set of guidelines.

popes are unethical, it comes with the job, they know there is no proof of god yet they continue to support a non truth.
This is another reason I have extreme dislike of you. I am an atheist, but I'm not a moron. I am willing to believe that there are many devout believers out there who whole heartedly believe in the existence of god, and that this believe has directed them towards being exceptionally good people. Some of them have been Popes in fact. Only two popes - so far - have been around in my lifetime, and while I don't like the current one, the last one seemed like a very nice man, and I the only impression I ever got from him was that of a man who passionately devoted himself to service to the church and trying to lead a righteous life.

they betray their flock with lies and deceit.
I'm sure there have been Popes who knew they were full of ****. The Renaissance era was full of them. They were ****ing their mistress, having daughters and then ****ing their daughters... But the behavior of individuals shouldn't reflect on the office. It's the same as saying "GWB is an asshole, so thus all US Presidents must have been assholes." It's a logical fallacy, and invoking it simply show's that you are to biased to have a valid opinion.

anyone who takes up the office must be unethical
I would argue the majority of Popes made up some of the most devoted and ethical people to have ever lived. Celeste V stands out especially. JPII as well.

[mph4ever]

you are soooo out of synch. i won't be as rude. no need to profess your atheism as if it gives you some basis to argue your point from a neutral perspective. that means nothing. you could be the pope for all i care. my points still stand and you have done nothing to address them except insult me. your second last point talks about stuff that went on in the 9th century or before. your last one names 2 out of 263. get real.

[1338 h4x0r]

you are soooo out of synch. i won't be as rude. no need to profess your atheism as if it gives you some basis to argue your point from a neutral perspective. that means nothing. you could be the pope for all i care. my points still stand and you have done nothing to address them except insult me. your second last point talks about stuff that went on in the 9th century or before. your last one names 2 out of 263. get real.

You made a statement that can be re-read like so: "For all x where x is the Pope, x is unethical." All Over-man needs to do to knock down a 'for all' statement like that is provide one counterexample. Naming two would be overly generous.

[Der Übermensch]

you are soooo out of synch.
I'm in touch with reality. You are out of synch.

i won't be as rude.
o?

no need to profess your atheism as if it gives you some basis to argue your point from a neutral perspective.
I don't see anywhere that I did so. I made a one sentence statement to point out that I don't have a pro-catholic agenda.
It admittedly also implied I find militant atheism to be moronic but I don't see anywehre that I "profess my atheism".

that means nothing. you could be the pope for all i care.
Bearing on this?

my points still stand and you have done nothing to address them except insult me.
My peppering of unwarranted ad hominums have been buffered with a multitude of facts that show your error. I'm late for a very important appointment, but I'll enbolden them when I return if it will help you find them.
your second last point talks about stuff that went on in the 9th century or before.
John XII was 900 or so, but Alexander XI (I think that was the #) was more like 1500's. And anyways, you mentioned the crusades and the Inquisition, which all happened before the modern era, so I don't see how thats a valid contention.

your last one names 2 out of 263. get real.
Do you want me to list my rating of each and every one? Get Real. I simply listed my two favorites.
I just needed to point out one anyways, as it would prove your broad uneducated statement to be off base.

[Smokey D]

The Pope has always claimed to be the leader of the Church but only since 1870 has he claimed to be infalilble. And infalibility only occurs when the Pope invokes certain circumstances. It's not the case that every word coming out of his mouth is meant to be infalilble.

Attempts were made to define infallibility earlier, but these never got very far until the 19th century.

[thedeadwalk!]

Do you have any knowledge as to why the notion of infallibility was invoked for the Pope?

[Smokey D]

I've heard an argument that it was a reaction to the changes wrought by modernity. In a changing world, the Church needed to affirm its position and found papal infallibility to do it. Same reason Protestant Churches became much more focused on the concept of biblical inerrancy aroudn the same time.

[mph4ever]

but eith the application of infallibility came the fact that previous dogma or canon law changes were also considered to be made by gods representative on earth, so, the pope has always been infallible. they may have confirmed that in the 19th century but they were only confirming what was always believed to be true. thats one of the reasons vatican I was such a disgrace

quit with the uneducated. it is annoying to argue with someone so unaware of reality without them putting forward some effort to refute what is stated.

the popes role is unethical. ask any jew, muslim, intelligent atheist, hindu, taoist, buddhist, agnostic, he leads an unethical organisation and as such must be judged as unethical.

don't mention crusades. where was the pope only last week? in america. ever seen him in iraq giving impartial support, guess not. it wouldn't be ethical, now, would it?

fu'ck off

[Smokey D]

but eith the application of infallibility came the fact that previous dogma or canon law changes were also considered to be made by gods representative on earth, so, the pope has always been infallible. they may have confirmed that in the 19th century but they were only confirming what was always believed to be true. thats one of the reasons vatican I was such a disgrace

No he hasn't. He never had authority to change or proclaim dogma unilaterally and he still doesn't have the authority to say things that are completely wrong. Infallibility is strictly limited and you're making yourself look like an idiot by denying historical fact. Quit it.

quit with the uneducated. it is annoying to argue with someone so unaware of reality without them putting forward some effort to refute what is stated.

I do a degree in European and Church history. So har.

the popes role is unethical. ask any jew, muslim, intelligent atheist, hindu, taoist, buddhist, agnostic, he leads an unethical organisation and as such must be judged as unethical.


What a stupid test.

don't mention crusades. where was the pope only last week? in america. ever seen him in iraq giving impartial support, guess not. it wouldn't be ethical, now, would it?


No it wouldn't be you idiot. That's not what ethical means. Stop it.

[mph4ever]

now the moderator has gone to the idiot level, man, you lot are so easily wound up. moderators jobs are to moderate. stay out of the argument, your opinion is not required unless it is actually impartial, moderate please

face up to whats real. the pope is a douche. hes an unethical fu'ck who heads up an organisation that is in place to manipulate people, en masse, for its own ends. thats unethical, in its purest form. popes don't strive to improve the world, they strive, in the name of the lord god jesus christ, to protect the interests of the catholic church

sooner the better you realise this

[Smokey D]

now the moderator has gone to the idiot level, man, you lot are so easily wound up. moderators jobs are to moderate. stay out of the argument, your opinion is not required unless it is actually impartial, moderate please

Hah, no it's not. I moderate content not arguments.

face up to whats real. the pope is a douche. hes an unethical fu'ck who heads up an organisation that is in place to manipulate people, en masse, for its own ends. thats unethical, in its purest form. popes don't strive to improve the world, they strive, in the name of the lord god jesus christ, to protect the interests of the catholic church


Sure I can see how a pope can be unethical. But I don't think it's automatic. Even if the institution he heads is the most corrupt thing in the world it's possible the pope is extremely pious and self-sacrificing.

I think it's pretty clear the Church has done an awful lot to helpt the world in addition to its crimes. There's no way you can make such sweeping statements about something so large and diverse.

But I'm not even disputing that. I'm just disputing your mangled recount of history that you've put together to fit your position. It's wrong and misleading and you claim to have cottoned on to the great secret of the Church. You have a grade school knowledge of Church history.

[descendents1]

-You might have to prosecute someone you know to be innocent (remember that thread from 2 months ago...)

...because I can't make a point on my own.

[Der Übermensch]

but eith the application of infallibility came the fact that previous dogma or canon law changes were also considered to be made by gods representative on earth, so, the pope has always been infallible. they may have confirmed that in the 19th century but they were only confirming what was always believed to be true. thats one of the reasons vatican I was such a disgrace
Infallibility can only be invoked in extremely specific circumstances and it must meet a barrage of tests and acclimation from many many people. It's not the Pope making a mere whim come true.

quit with the uneducated.
Anyone with so little understanding of basic logic can't possibly be educated. You can't argue that one rotten egg makes the whole batch rotten, and neither can you point out specific popes and their policies and use this to claim the office is innately corrupt.

it is annoying to argue with someone so unaware of reality without them putting forward some effort to refute what is stated.
Man, at least we agree with SOMETHING. I haven't seen a supportable fact come out of your mouth (well, fingers... this is typing) once. I'm a ****ing encyclopedia and I've been gracing you with historical facts all evening.

the popes role is unethical. ask any jew, muslim, intelligent atheist, hindu, taoist, buddhist, agnostic, he leads an unethical organisation and as such must be judged as unethical.
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/pope-synagogue-2-2.jpg There is a Jew who disagrees. I heard the Pope gave a very nice speech there that was well received.


don't mention crusades.
I didn't. You did...

where was the pope only last week? in america. ever seen him in iraq giving impartial support, guess not. it wouldn't be ethical, now, would it?
How many times have I said I don't care much for this pope? Yeah... he should go to Iraq. JPII probably would have, which is why I liked him much more.
Lets make this simple... If X(subone) = Y, this can not be used as proof that X(subtwo) = Y. (Or if you are to thick headed for mathmatical analogies, If Pope A = asshole, it doesn't prove Pope B = Asshole).

now the moderator has gone to the idiot level, man, you lot are so easily wound up. moderators jobs are to moderate. stay out of the argument, your opinion is not required unless it is actually impartial, moderate please
Smokey is a mod because he is one of the smartest guys on here. You would do good to listen to him.

face up to whats real. the pope is a douche.
Pope Benedict XVI is a douche. It is a non sequitur to say this applies to the office in general. Have I said that enough times to get into your thick head?

hes an unethical fu'ck who heads up an organisation that is in place to manipulate people, en masse, for its own ends.thats unethical, in its purest form
See previous comment.

popes don't strive to improve the world, they strive, in the name of the lord god jesus christ, to protect the interests of the catholic church
They do both actually. They honestly believe (most of them) that they are providing a much needed service to humanity. Sure, the Catholic Church has done some **** things before. Even committed atrocities. But for every bad thing it has done, there are plenty of good ones, just like any other religion - or secular organization for that matter. Was Mother Teresa a self-serving hypocrite or someone who passionate devoted her life to helping those in need?

sooner the better you realise this
I realized the Church was full of **** when I was 8 years old. I'm not ignorant enough to discount that just because something can't help me it can't help someone else. I also hate peanut butter - it is the absolute most vile smelling thing around - but I'm not going to campaign to have it eliminated from the face of the planet, because plenty of people enjoy it.
The Church - religion in general - has been great for a lot of people. My grandmother was an amazingly devout woman - walked over a mile there into her 70's - and I know that her faith was one of the reasons that she was such a great person in general.
Camus broke people into three groups. Those who saw the bullshit and gave up, those who saw the bullshit and persevered, and those who couldn't come to terms with the bullshit (wow that is a brief summary). The majority of people fall into the last category, and they simply believe the bullshit because they need to. I don't hold anything against them for it. I would say you also believe in the bullshit... just a different kind of bullshit. You keep your eyes closed just as much as the most devout Catholic. You need to open them. Seriously. You need to open your ****ing eyes man.

[1338 h4x0r]

Lets make this simple... If X(subone) = Y, this can not be used as proof that X(subtwo) = Y. (Or if you are to thick headed for mathematical analogies, If Pope A = asshole, it doesn't prove Pope B = Asshole).

But you see, he's using the constant function f : set of all popes -> {asshole}.


They do both actually. They honestly believe (most of them) that they are providing a much needed service to humanity. Sure, the Catholic Church has done some **** things before. Even committed atrocities. But for every bad thing it has done, there are plenty of good ones, just like any other religion - or secular organization for that matter. Was Mother Teresa a self-serving hypocrite or someone who passionate devoted her life to helping those in need?

Idk, the perspective of certain Hindus on this matter (though they may be deluded wingers) casts the story in a different light. For instance, I understand her medical staff didn't wash bloodied instruments properly, running them under warm water only. If that IS true, it's bullshit. Even people in poor countries can afford to use a pressure cooker for an autoclave; that's what those Vietnamese doctors did in the war. With all that money she got over the years, it should have been within her means...

I also hate peanut butter - it is the absolute most vile smelling thing around

Dude...no...


Camus broke people into three groups. Those who saw the bullshit and gave up, those who saw the bullshit and perceived, and those who couldn't come to terms with the bullshit (wow that is a brief summary). The majority of people fall into the last category, and they simply believe the bullshit because they need to.

Can you clarify this grouping? What do you mean by "perceived"?

[Der Übermensch]

O, that should have been persevered lol. Fixed now.

Anyways though, its just a super abrupt summary of Absurdism.

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm waiting for you to applaud my incredibly witty constant Pope function joke

[Der Übermensch]

Mathmatics just gives me headaches unfotyunalty and dones mix well with alcohol.

[1338 h4x0r]

Alcohol gives me headaches and doesn't mix well with mathematics ... everyone knows mathematics isn't soluble in alcohol

There again, they both have proof ...

[Der Übermensch]

that ones pshin it

[1338 h4x0r]

My ability to make terrible technical jokes is almost boundless

[Der Übermensch]

I'm sure there was a way you could have written that mathmaticlly.

[1338 h4x0r]

lim t->∞ ∫ f(t) = ∞, where t is time since my birth and f(t) is the number of bad jokes I make at that time

[Der Übermensch]

much better

[1338 h4x0r]

my jokes are associative because they're unfunny no matter what order I combine them

[siva_chair]

my jokes are associative because they're unfunny no matter what order I combine them

Which gives them the edge they need to succeed in certain situations.

[mph4ever]

see, i think my eyes are wide open. i do tend to generalise a little too much. i do appreciate your efforts to correct what you feel is my wrong thinking. i don't appreciate the personal comments but will accept them if it means the conversation can continue and if it enables you to fucntion better by venting your anger and frustration at me. i try to deal with facts but i also look at the circumstances and then try to interpret them. history is not written from the perspective of the future readers needs. it is written from the perspective of someone who is either a contemporary of the participants or by someone who is looking back through time but is influenced by their own surroundings. i do not trust these sources as fact since they must be in some way warped due to the circumstances or leanings of its author.

the pope's office has been used for unethical actions. a very high percentage of popes have acted unethically. it is wrong for me to say all but if it were any other instituion who had acted the way of the popes office then they would have been out of business a long time ago.

at vatican I pius introduced infallibility. what he did was invoke infallbility for previous popes and their actions, all the way back to peter. i'm not saying the pope that ordered the crusades or the inquisition was infallible in their own mind at that time. they were just unethical. but the church now recognises the popes who ordered those atrocities as being infallible. the reason that popes up to this would not accept infallibity was because it would stop them criticising the previous popes. i suspect thats why, since it has been applied, infallibility has been rarely invoked. its just too complicated since they would have to check to see who they are contradicting and imply that perhaps a previous pope was actually not infallible.

when i said that the moderator had gone to the idiot level, i was referring to the fact that smokey had called me an idiot, after you had felt inclined to do similar. smokey doesn't need anyone to say hes one of the smartest around. it is very apparent in his posts and the way he thinks of his role

[Reaganista]

Anyone with so little understanding of basic logic can't possibly be educated. You can't argue that one rotten egg makes the whole batch rotten, and neither can you point out specific popes and their policies and use this to claim the office is innately corrupt.
is it wrong to lie because any religious official's entire existence is founded on lies

[mph4ever]

just to that one point above. i was going to leave the detail where it was but this one caught my eye, thanks.


Anyone with so little understanding of basic logic can't possibly be educated. You can't argue that one rotten egg makes the whole batch rotten, and neither can you point out specific popes and their policies and use this to claim the office is innately corrupt.


one rotten egg cannot make the whole batch rotten, but if the circumstances prevail to make one egg rotten then who is to say that the whole batch would not be made rotten at the same time. if the institution or office of the pope is inherently unethical then each and every pope is tainted by its rotteness. how many reforming popes can we name? john xxiii maybe in setting up vatican ii but unfortunately his plans fell short of what was required and paul vi made a bollox of it.

[peeted]

Being the pope isnt a sufficient condition of being a bad person, even if all popes up untill now have been bad people. And just because the institution has an inherent problem (which the vatican doesnt nesceserily have) it doesnt make every member have that property. The police force maybe an inherentley racist institution but it doesnt make every cop a racist. (i dont want to argue about weather it is inherentley racist, its just an example).

[mph4ever]

fair point

[Reaganista]

Being the pope isnt a sufficient condition of being a bad person, even if all popes up untill now have been bad people. And just because the institution has an inherent problem (which the vatican doesnt nesceserily have) it doesnt make every member have that property. The police force maybe an inherentley racist institution but it doesnt make every cop a racist. (i dont want to argue about weather it is inherentley racist, its just an example).
i think you have to tell people 'there is a god' and 'this is what he wants you to do' in order to be pope so yeah i'd say being a pope makes you a bad person unless they come up with a pope who's an athiest and doesn't tell people what to do

[peeted]

Teachers tell people what to do, they are not bad people. As do judges, employers and a vast aray of other people. And telling people something that is wrong doesnt make you a bad person, im sure not everything that is taught in science classes right now is true, does that make the teachers bad people? no it doesnt, they just dont know any better right now.

Infact the pope is teaching people what he believes, he believes that if people dont live there life like good cristians they will suffer, and so he tries to reduce their suffering by teaching this stuff. That makes being the pope quite a moraly respectable job, weather you believe in god or not.

[Reaganista]

people who tell people that they know what god wants them to do are bad people
it doesnt matter if theyre bad due to ignorance or if they have a vindictive motive

[peeted]

How is that so? his belief in religion is just as strong, or stronger than your belief in anything else, all he is doing is using what he thinks is his knowledge to help people. Using your knowledge to help people is a good thing, therefore what the pope does is (moraly speaking) a good thing.

Just for the record i dont know weather this pope says what he says for good reasons or bad, im talking about the job of pope in general, not any specific pope.

[Reaganista]

except he's wrong and what he does is bad
it doesn't matter if he thinks he's doing good Mao thought he was doing good

[Der Übermensch]

i think you have to tell people 'there is a god' and 'this is what he wants you to do' in order to be pope so yeah i'd say being a pope makes you a bad person unless they come up with a pope who's an athiest and doesn't tell people what to do

This is why you are wrong. It ISN'T WRONG to tell people there is a god. Sure, the road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say, but I don't think the road to heaven is exactly paved with bad ones. Most Popes mean well and are trying to help people. Shut up with your militant atheism. It's just as bad as any fundamentalist religion.
You have a ****ing bone to pick with religion, and it keeps you from having anywhere close to a logical perspective.

Camus broke people into three groups. Those who saw the bullshit and gave up, those who saw the bullshit and persevered, and those who couldn't come to terms with the bullshit (wow that is a brief summary). The majority of people fall into the last category, and they simply believe the bullshit because they need to. I don't hold anything against them for it.
That was really the only point I made I wanted answered... and you (mph) skipped it. Care to try?

[Reaganista]

This is why you are wrong. It ISN'T WRONG to tell people there is a god. Sure, the road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say, but I don't think the road to heaven is exactly paved with bad ones. Most Popes mean well and are trying to help people. Shut up with your militant atheism. It's just as bad as any fundamentalist religion.
You have a ****ing bone to pick with religion, and it keeps you from having anywhere close to a logical perspective.
intentions could not be more irrelevent
if you do bad things you are bad

[JohnXDoe]

webmaster

[Der Übermensch]

I'm not gonna bother arguing with you tway :p
Mph is even more fun than you!!!

I just felt like throwing you a bone to play with for a bit ;)

[mph4ever]

is that good or bad?

[Der Übermensch]

Well considering I like belittling idiots on here, take it for what you will :)
I don't do debate anymore, so this is the only way I can get my kicks :(

[JohnXDoe]

non nude strippers

[mph4ever]

Well considering I like belittling idiots on here, take it for what you will :)
I don't do debate anymore, so this is the only way I can get my kicks :(

i don't give a flyin' fu'ck anyway. i think it makes it all the more interesting to try to avoid the low blows and stick in the odd clash of heads

thats sad but i think i am beginning to understand, you are all webbed out, wouldn't blame you

are you moderator?
Today 05:42 PM

[Der Übermensch]

Webbed out?
I haven't a clue that that means.
If it means bored and entertaining myself though, yes, thats exactly it.

[ringworm]

maybe a repo-man or bailbondsman, they, many times, are above the law

[mph4ever]

Webbed out?
I haven't a clue that that means.
If it means bored and entertaining myself though, yes, thats exactly it.


thats exactly it then. c'est la vie.

EDIT - i hadn't noticed the rep thing, hahahahahahaha, every which way you can, huh

[Futue te Ipsum]

Lawyers. Sure, there are plenty of good ones, but...

-You might have to prosecute someone you know to be innocent (remember that thread from 2 months ago?)
-You might defend someone you know to have killed someone and will do it again

In these cases, you have to apply "justice" even though you KNOW you are causing harm by doing it. And personal injury lawyers? Most are scum.In the latter case you're expected to allow the guilty party a fair trial and nothing more. What's so unethical about that?

[1338 h4x0r]

Teachers tell people what to do, they are not bad people. As do judges, employers and a vast aray of other people. And telling people something that is wrong doesnt make you a bad person, im sure not everything that is taught in science classes right now is true, does that make the teachers bad people? no it doesnt, they just dont know any better right now.

Unless they're teaching 'ID'

Then there's no excuse

[Tyrant21]

the pope's office has been used for unethical actions. a very high percentage of popes have acted unethically.


um, like what percentage, name names, how much do you know about all the popes?

[Futue te Ipsum]

is "basically every pope in the middle ages" acceptable as a percentage?

[1338 h4x0r]

The Renaissance was worse

WAY worse

[mph4ever]

um, like what percentage, name names, how much do you know about all the popes?

on the percentages, its hard to say because i didn't actually guage it whilst i studied it. i have read biographies based on what information is available on 263 of them. i have also read extensively about the history of christianity so obviously the pope is a major figure in that. so i would say i have read a lot and verified some from other sources

the general feeling i get from it is that there was a lot of corruption, all down through the ages. there was also a lot of abuse of the position to get what the vatican wanted out of things. there was always the threat of hell, purgatory and the such like. there was excommunication, fornication, war mongering, it really is a history that up to recently looks like that of a rogue state that has the ultimate super weapon, god, on its side and they used it to perfection to manipulate everything.

[mph4ever]

Camus broke people into three groups. Those who saw the bullpoop and gave up, those who saw the bullpoop and persevered, and those who couldn't come to terms with the bullpoop (wow that is a brief summary). The majority of people fall into the last category, and they simply believe the bullpoop because they need to. I don't hold anything against them for it. I would say you also believe in the bullpoop... just a different kind of bullpoop. You keep your eyes closed just as much as the most devout Catholic. You need to open them. Seriously. You need to open your ****ing eyes man.


That was really the only point I made I wanted answered... and you (mph) skipped it. Care to try?

i only saw the (mph) earlier

you've got me wrong if you think that. you would actually have to explain to me what it is you don't think i can come to terms with and what sh'it you think i need to believe?

and as you do remember, you cannot acquire experience by making experiments. you cannot create experience. you must undergo it. i've been through it

[Futue te Ipsum]

The Renaissance was worse

WAY worsenah they funded better art which vindicates them

[Der Übermensch]

you've got me wrong if you think that. you would actually have to explain to me what it is you don't think i can come to terms with and what sh'it you think i need to believe?
Do you or do you not believe religion to be a lie, and do you or do you not hold this fact against religion?
Because I assume you say "yes" and "yes" - thats what you have made abundantly clear - so I don't see how I have you wrong.

Marx was right when he called religion the opiate of the masses, but as with many drug users, they use it because they simply can't function with out it. Militant atheism is just as much an opiate as religion though. Thats the bullshit I referred to that you believe in. You can't hold it against people that they have faith. The world is a shitty shitty place, and its all that keeps them going. If it makes them happy, why fight it?
My old favorite, Max Stirner put it best "If it is right for me, it is right. It is possible that it is wrong for others: let them take care of themselves!" What is right for you is right for you. It isn't right for everyone. So don't belittle them for it. Let them decide what is best for them. And if believing that some guy died 2,000 years ago to absolve their sins and that taking part in a silly, weekly ritual where they engage in faux-cannibalism to partake in this salvation is what gives them peace of mind, thats ****ing fine by me.

And it makes more sense then "Punks Not Dead" pins anyways.

[Reaganista]

you're justifying continued indoctrination based on the fact that some people are indoctrinated that makes no sense

[1338 h4x0r]

My old favorite, Max Stirner put it best "If it is right for me, it is right. It is possible that it is wrong for others: let them take care of themselves!"

What if I want to become the next Adolf Hitler? That would be pretty cool.

[Der Übermensch]

you're justifying continued indoctrination based on the fact that some people are indoctrinated that makes no sense

No. Based on the fact that if they weren't indoctrinated they wouldn't survive.

[Reaganista]

of course they would survive that's retarded people got along just fine before religion was invented

[siva_chair]

What if I want to become the next Adolf Hitler? That would be pretty cool.

Other people would make it within their best interest to kill you. You are welcome to try, but you are gonna get shot. :thumb:

[1338 h4x0r]

Other people would make it within their best interest to kill you. You are welcome to try, but you are gonna get shot. :thumb:

People are stupid. I just have to convince them (or most of them) that I'm the best leader.

[siva_chair]

People are stupid. I just have to convince them (or most of them) that I'm the best leader.

And convince them that "all j00s r teh ev1L"

Well good luck with that.

[1338 h4x0r]

And convince them that "all j00s r teh ev1L"

Psh, yeah, like anyone was ever convinced to scapegoat all of his problems on the Jews despite the fact that they obviously weren't to blame. What a pipe dream!

[siva_chair]

Psh, yeah, like anyone was ever convinced to scapegoat all of his problems on the Jews despite the fact that they obviously weren't to blame. What a pipe dream!

no see teh j00bs r teh illUmiNati! teh want 2 take ovr teh wOrldz!

[1338 h4x0r]

no see teh j00bs r teh illUmiNati! teh want 2 take ovr teh wOrldz!

Well, all humor aside, the 21st century has hardly started and already the promise of "Nie wieder" has died out. Yep, people are stupid.

[mph4ever]

Do you or do you not believe religion to be a lie, and do you or do you not hold this fact against religion?
Because I assume you say "yes" and "yes" - thats what you have made abundantly clear - so I don't see how I have you wrong.

Marx was right when he called religion the opiate of the masses, but as with many drug users, they use it because they simply can't function with out it. Militant atheism is just as much an opiate as religion though. Thats the bullpoop I referred to that you believe in. You can't hold it against people that they have faith. The world is a poopty poopty place, and its all that keeps them going. If it makes them happy, why fight it?
My old favorite, Max Stirner put it best "If it is right for me, it is right. It is possible that it is wrong for others: let them take care of themselves!" What is right for you is right for you. It isn't right for everyone. So don't belittle them for it. Let them decide what is best for them. And if believing that some guy died 2,000 years ago to absolve their sins and that taking part in a silly, weekly ritual where they engage in faux-cannibalism to partake in this salvation is what gives them peace of mind, thats ****ing fine by me.

And it makes more sense then "Punks Not Dead" pins anyways.


i gotta clear up one thing first, surely your preoccupation with me being addicted to an opiate is indicative of the fact that you are the one with the addiction. why else would you bother to call me an idiot, why not just leave me be?

[1338 h4x0r]

i gotta clear up one thing first, surely your preoccupation with me being addicted to an opiate is indicative of the fact that you are the one with the addiction.

If you adhere to the 'it takes one to know one' school of thought.

[mph4ever]

If you adhere to the 'it takes one to know one' school of thought.

not just that but also this


My old favorite, Max Stirner put it best "If it is right for me, it is right. It is possible that it is wrong for others: let them take care of themselves!" What is right for you is right for you. It isn't right for everyone. So don't belittle them for it. Let them decide what is best for them.

i'm not saying its the case but the above suggests to me that i should be let do what i like because its right for me.

[1338 h4x0r]

I think militant atheism is exempt from that clause, which was the point

[mph4ever]

why is militant atheism being brought up?

[1338 h4x0r]

because you adhere to it

[mph4ever]

no, i think you have wrong

[1338 h4x0r]

I have several bottles of fruit juice

I'm fresh out of wrong

[Der Übermensch]

no, i think you have wrong

I'm sorry, I guess that wasn't you going on about how religion is all lies and the religious leaders are horrible people for propagating them...

i'm not saying its the case but the above suggests to me that i should be let do what i like because its right for me.
Insofar as it doesn't interfere with another person's beliefs. Which your views obviously do, as you won't be happy until the Catholic Church is dismantled it seems...

i gotta clear up one thing first, surely your preoccupation with me being addicted to an opiate is indicative of the fact that you are the one with the addiction. why else would you bother to call me an idiot, why not just leave me be?
Well as to part one, I believe that, in logic, that form of conclusion falls under non sequitur... (and yeah yeah yeah, go ahead and call me on my ad hominums, but they aren't ad hominums as long as they accompany actual facts to back it up. Then they are astute observations :cheers: )
As for the second, you have a bulls-eye painted on you thats 10 ft. wide, and I got nothing better to do then take my potshots.

[RockAndRoll]

Insofar as it doesn't interfere with another person's beliefs.

But in a lot of cases both atheists' and theists' beliefs do interfere with others' beliefs. That's the problem. Besides there are many problems with this criteria.

I mean does my belief that I should kill you interfere with your belief that you should live? Or does your belief that you should live interfere with my belief that I should kill you?

Also your belief that I shouldn't believe things that interfere with others' beliefs interferes with my belief that I should believe things that interfere with others' beliefs. So by your own rule you shouldn't believe it.

[Der Übermensch]

This is a private argument RnR :(

And I don't really feel like getting into natural law right now bleh. Maybe after I get back from Frisbee.

[Reaganista]

people dont have a right to be wrong

[mph4ever]

I'm sorry, I guess that wasn't you going on about how religion is all lies and the religious leaders are horrible people for propagating them...


yup, that was me. i do have a fundamental issue with the propagation of lies for the betterment of the few. the christian church is a good example of what i can see through. i do not think that its leaders have the right to lie and cheat. i dislike the american government, i dislike the chinese government, i dislike the islamic jihadists, i dislike pop music, i dislike the forced monetary exspense that kids suffer due to fu'cked up fashion, i dislike zionism and the nwo, i dislike hippies because they smell, i dislike scousers because they are scousers, do i deserve to be victimised for these dislikes?


Insofar as it doesn't interfere with another person's beliefs. Which your views obviously do, as you won't be happy until the Catholic Church is dismantled it seems...
how do they interfere? i am not threatening


Well as to part one, I believe that, in logic, that form of conclusion falls under non sequitur... (and yeah yeah yeah, go ahead and call me on my ad hominums, but they aren't ad hominums as long as they accompany actual facts to back it up. Then they are astute observations :cheers: )

eh, i could back them up all day. i assume that you should do the work to prove me wrong. you will find little error in what i have stated, very little. in fact i would say none, if you really do understand the nature of the subject


As for the second, you have a bulls-eye painted on you thats 10 ft. wide, and I got nothing better to do then take my potshots.

*what is it with you people - the word is THAN, not then*

yeah, maybe, but you must be the worst shot in history. you can't see the target, let alone hit the fu'cking thing.

are you the champion, the knight in shining armour, of all those who are disliked for a very good reason?

its wide open

[1338 h4x0r]

*what is it with you people - the word is THAN, not then*

That's trivial

are you the champion, the knight in shining armour, of all those who are disliked for a very good reason?

We are the Black Knights
The Knights of Evil
And no one will defeat us
Because our kingdom will last forever

[mph4ever]

That's trivial

no, it is not trivial, it is something that i believe in religiously and i would prefer if you would make the effort to accept it and respect it and not offend my beliefs by repeatedly making that mistake


We are the Black Knights
The Knights of Evil
And no one will defeat us
Because our kingdom will last forever

i'm more in to space marines myself ;)

[1338 h4x0r]

no, it is not trivial, it is something that i believe in religiously and i would prefer if you would make the effort to accept it and respect it and not offend my beliefs by repeatedly making that mistake

Logic is more important then speling

i'm more in to space marines myself ;)

We are the Black Knights
We are born to dominate
Because we are Death
We are Darkness
And we are Hate

[mph4ever]

i like alien sex fiend to be honest, black metal is just a bastardisation, just like christianity really

[Det_Nosnip]

Every position has its ethical dilemnas, and often the case is that you have to put your conscience aside in order to get anywhere in life.

I would say that the medical insurance industry is pretty up there...e.g. "if I make my quota of treatments rejected this month, I get a bonus!"

[1338 h4x0r]

black metal is just a bastardisation, just like christianity really

Black metal is pvre and trve

I would say that the medical insurance industry is pretty up there...e.g. "if I make my quota of treatments rejected this month, I get a bonus!"

Sounds cool

[Der Übermensch]

I wrote a reply, but I deleted it and instead pointed out all your logical fallacies, cause it was more enjoyable.
yup, that was me. i do have a fundamental issue with the propagation of lies for the betterment of the few. the christian church is a good example of what i can see through. i do not think that its leaders have the right to lie and cheat.
Your argument here, as previously shown, is a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.

i dislike the american government, i dislike the chinese government, i dislike the islamic jihadists, i dislike pop music, i dislike the forced monetary exspense that kids suffer due to fu'cked up fashion, i dislike zionism and the nwo, i dislike hippies because they smell, i dislike scousers because they are scousers, do i deserve to be victimised for these dislikes?
Ignoratio elenchi

eh, i could back them up all day. i assume that you should do the work to prove me wrong. you will find little error in what i have stated, very little.* in fact i would say none, if you really do understand the nature of the subject
Ad hominum. Possibly argumentum ad verecundiam?


*what is it with you people - the word is THAN, not then*
Ad hominum.

yeah, maybe, but you must be the worst shot in history. you can't see the target, let alone hit the fu'cking thing.
Ad hominum.

are you the champion, the knight in shining armour, of all those who are disliked for a very good reason?
Ad hominum followed by what I think would fall under non sequitur.


Now, I love ad hominums personally. But you can't use them if you don't back them up. You need to point out where the error is when you use it.
Your entire argument has been based on nothing of any real bearing. Your problem is I don't dispute almost anything you say.
Yes, the Church is pretty silly. Yes, a good number of Popes have fallen under any number of really bad categorizations. Yes, the Church has done bad **** in the past, and yes, it has some current policies that are less than admirable. I don't need to prove any of that wrong. I agree with it. It's hard not to appreciate history without having manifold knowledge of the matter.
--------The Meat of the Post---------
I again return to the argument made by Camus, although perhaps I'll go a bit more in depth this time, as you obviously didn't get it last time.
If there is any meaning in life, it is beyond Human comprehension. Faced with this realization, there are three options: Acceptance, Leap of Faith, and Suicide. Now, I agree with Camus that Acceptance is the only valid choice here, but also see that it's probably the hardest one to take. To be the absurd hero is the hardest path, and the strongest. I'm not sure which I would call the weakest choice, as both Suicide and Leap of Faith both stem from the unwillingness to accept the absurd condition of man. I know that Camus considered them the same almost, both a Suicide of a sort.
The plain fact of the matter is though that most people CAN'T take the acceptance road. They are to weak. They must take the Leap of Faith instead and grasp the untrue meaning and ignore the reality of the matter.
The moral of this little lesson in philosophy is that you hold it against them for doing this, but you can't do that. You can't hold someone's nature against them...

[1338 h4x0r]

Ad Hominem?

lol

Kaiser Wodhanaz is a great musician

[mph4ever]

Black metal is pvre and trve


pure and true, i respect your opinion, and i am delighted that you feel you can express yourself and i don't believe you are doing anything i find distasteful, so, yeah, go ahead

[1338 h4x0r]

BLACK METAL IST KRIEG

[mph4ever]

I wrote a reply, but I deleted it and instead pointed out all your logical fallacies, cause it was more enjoyable.


i would have preferred your more natural response which probably went something like "shut up, you uneducated idiot, you know nothing of which you speak(ok, well, type, then)"


Your argument here, as previously shown, is a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter.

no its not, and if you want me to explain further then i suggest you question further rather than be so dismissive.



Ignoratio elenchi


Ad hominum. Possibly argumentum ad verecundiam?



Ad hominum.


Ad hominum.


Ad hominum followed by what I think would fall under non sequitur.

unless there is something here you actually feel strongly about then lets just leave it


Now, I love ad hominums personally. But you can't use them if you don't back them up. You need to point out where the error is when you use it.
Your entire argument has been based on nothing of any real bearing. Your problem is I don't dispute almost anything you say.
Yes, the Church is pretty silly. Yes, a good number of Popes have fallen under any number of really bad categorizations. Yes, the Church has done bad **** in the past, and yes, it has some current policies that are less than admirable. I don't need to prove any of that wrong. I agree with it. It's hard not to appreciate history without having manifold knowledge of the matter.


fair enough


--------The Meat of the Post---------
I again return to the argument made by Camus, although perhaps I'll go a bit more in depth this time, as you obviously didn't get it last time.

i will put this down to your condition and not mine


If there is any meaning in life, it is beyond Human comprehension. Faced with this realization, there are three options: Acceptance, Leap of Faith, and Suicide. Now, I agree with Camus that Acceptance is the only valid choice here, but also see that it's probably the hardest one to take. To be the absurd hero is the hardest path, and the strongest. I'm not sure which I would call the weakest choice, as both Suicide and Leap of Faith both stem from the unwillingness to accept the absurd condition of man. I know that Camus considered them the same almost, both a Suicide of a sort.
The plain fact of the matter is though that most people CAN'T take the acceptance road. They are to weak. They must take the Leap of Faith instead and grasp the untrue meaning and ignore the reality of the matter.
The moral of this little lesson in philosophy is that you hold it against them for doing this, but you can't do that. You can't hold someone's nature against them...

so sad, but inevitable, there is but one freedom, to put oneself right with death. after that everything is possible. i cannot force you to believe in god. believing in god amounts to coming to terms with death. when you have accepted death, the problem of God will be solved--and not the reverse.

our civilisation survives in the complacency of cowardly or malignant minds -- a sacrifice to the vanity of aging adolescents.

unforetunatley, this, to you is unaccpetable, i am fed up playing your silly games of repeating other people to express what you are unable to express, its boring, dope, don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; don't walk behind me, i may not lead; Walk beside me, and just be my friend.

i know you have me wrong. i don't hold it against them. if they pop their head up then, sure i will swipe, if they are too ignorant, i will take their head off, hahahaha, its what you'd expect.

i do think that you might be so bored with all this that you fail to accept any other posters point of view, if it gives you the opportunity to sh'it on them. and thats really sad, i feel for you but i think your condition is beyond anything i can help you with, you sad bast'ard

[Der Übermensch]

i would have preferred your more natural response which probably went something like "shut up, you uneducated idiot, you know nothing of which you speak(ok, well, type, then)"
My natural response was at the end. A reasoned explanation of Absurdist philosophy.


no its not, and if you want me to explain further then i suggest you question further rather than be so dismissive.
As I and others have said many many many many times, an individual or individuals being unethical does not prove the office to be unethical. Your argument is the definition of reverse accident

unless there is something here you actually feel strongly about then lets just leave it
If that was the case, I probably wouldn't have started with this in the first place.


i will put this down to your condition and not mine
Trying to play pshrink? You are the one who ignored the argument, not me.

so sad, but inevitable, there is but one freedom, to put oneself right with death. after that everything is possible. i cannot force you to believe in god. believing in god amounts to coming to terms with death. when you have accepted death, the problem of God will be solved--and not the reverse.
Are you saying you believe in God then? Cause I will admit that catches me quite off guard considering your vehement admonishments of religion these past few pages.

our civilisation survives in the complacency of cowardly or malignant minds -- a sacrifice to the vanity of aging adolescents.
unforetunatley, this, to you is unaccpetable, i am fed up playing your silly games of repeating other people to express what you are unable to express, its boring, dope, don't walk in front of me, I may not follow; don't walk behind me, i may not lead; Walk beside me, and just be my friend.
I'm not quite certain what you are getting at... the poor grammar is quite hard to push through (and you complain I'm too lazy to fix then to than?), but I will agree I'm playing silly games here (see below).
Repeating other people? Because you aren't? For example, you referenced Pious XII and Hitler... that's just restating Cornwell's research.
Of course I will introduce ideas that other people had. For starters, its quite hard to have a truly original idea, and secondly, it's a long and rich academic tradition to support one's argument by referencing and citing people of times past. So I'm going to continue to call upon my vast store of knowledge and reference it when appropriate (Camus for instance being a very good person to bring up if you are talking about faith and acceptance).

i know you have me wrong. i don't hold it against them. if they pop their head up then, sure i will swipe, if they are too ignorant, i will take their head off, hahahaha, its what you'd expect.
Then you are doing worse then merely holding it against them...

i do think that you might be so bored with all this that you fail to accept any other posters point of view, if it gives you the opportunity to sh'it on them.
Well, thats a strange way to describe it, but I guess if you want to think of it, I won't really correct you.
I've been on these forums for a very very long time. I long ago proved I can hold rational debate and am knowledgeable in my beliefs. Now I don't care. I just treat this like I used to treat debate team. A fun avenue in which to play Devils Advocate. I rarely, if ever, argue exactly what I believe (albeit it's easier if I go in that direction). It's just about mental exercise. Sure, there are some who are more enjoyable than others. Tway is always interesting for instance, because he has a similar outlook as me, so it ends up us just trolling each other. You are fun cause you don't know how to structure an argument and can't be appealed to with logic.

and thats really sad, i feel for you but i think your condition is beyond anything i can help you with, you sad bast'ard
When you refer to my "condition" are you meaning my mental health? My outlook? My state of being? You are the one who is taking this too seriously... It's the ****ing internet man. That is sad.

[mph4ever]

You are fun cause you don't know how to structure an argument and can't be appealed to with logic.



in your opinion


When you refer to my "condition" are you meaning my mental health? My outlook? My state of being? You are the one who is taking this too seriously... It's the ****ing internet man. That is sad.

obviously your state of being

[Der Übermensch]

in your opinion
You don't understand the fallacy of reverse accident for starters, which seems to be the entire basis of your argument. Thats seriously all I have needed to point out, and have constantly, but you don't get it. So yes, thats a simple fact, pointed out by multiple people.
You also appeal to ad hominums rather then merely put them in after the fact.

obviously your state of being
My state of being... Well, I am a well educated, comfortably middle class American college student who has an active social life, a diverse group of interesting friends, and who just happens to get a laugh making people take the internet too seriously and pointing out their shortcomings (Same reason I did debate in high school. It's fun to watch people take seriously what you don't care much about, and for them to fail). I'm quite happy with that state of being :)

[1338 h4x0r]

All I have to say is: "Bree bree breeeeeeeeee"

[mph4ever]

You don't understand the fallacy of reverse accident for starters, which seems to be the entire basis of your argument. Thats seriously all I have needed to point out, and have constantly, but you don't get it. So yes, thats a simple fact, pointed out by multiple people.
You also appeal to ad hominums rather then merely put them in after the fact.


so we are not talking about the facts anymore, we are talking about the structure.


My state of being... Well, I am a well educated, comfortably middle class American college student who has an active social life, a diverse group of interesting friends, and who just happens to get a laugh making people take the internet too seriously and pointing out their shortcomings (Same reason I did debate in high school. It's fun to watch people take seriously what you don't care much about, and for them to fail). I'm quite happy with that state of being :)

so you didn't get a laugh out of me then

i wouldn't associate your profile with your attitude

i'm glad you're happy

[peeted]

so we are not talking about the facts anymore, we are talking about the structure


Well its a fact that if your argument doesnt have a valid structure it doesnt matter what the "facts" are that your using as premises, its still garbage.

[mph4ever]

oh well, in hell

the pope and everything he stands for is unethical, every single one has acted unethically. there is no need to say that there are any exceptions because there are not. that is why i do not need to worry about the fallacy, its doesn't apply since this is not a faulty generalisation, its a fact. there is no issue in the destruction of the exception since there isn't a single one, in my personal opinion

[Futue te Ipsum]

homeopaths
faith healers
ted haggard
psychics

etc. I find it hard to believe that many of these people are genuine. The more you learn about homeopathy, for example, for more absurd it looks, so to me it's unthinkable that somebody could practice in the field and believe in it. This means that they're giving demonstratably useless medicines to patients who may reject modern medicine because of it.

[Der Übermensch]

so we are not talking about the facts anymore, we are talking about the structure.
See? A logical fallacy means the structure of your argument is false. You have correct facts but are using them incorrectly to prove a point that they can't prove.

Case in point is your last post where you say "the pope and everything he stands for is unethical, every single one has acted unethically. there is no need to say that there are any expections because there are not."
This is a broad, unprovable statement in the positive for one, not to mention easily provable to be false. For example, Celestine V was one of the most honest, and ethical persons to have ever existed. He was a Pope who truly tried to set an example of faith, living a simple, austere existence, and resigning the office once he had accomplished what he felt needed to be done.
Tell you what, write me a paragraph on each Pope, pointing out specifically why each one was unethical, and you win. I will concede defeat. Hell, I'll even ask Smokey to ban me for a week.
You know what though? You can't, cause a lot of them were nice guys!

so you didn't get a laugh out of me then
Thats not the point. It's to get a laugh out of me, and the people who are watching them too maybe?

i wouldn't associate your profile with your attitude
You mean the one on here? I haven't updated that since I joined the forum...

i'm glad you're happy
:chug:

[free_thinkers_are_dangerous]

I would argue that there are a lot of careers where you have the realistic temptation (or even encouragement) to do unethical things, but there are very few careers where you truly have to do unethical things. Even tobacco reps could conceivably choose simply to provide a product to satiate demand, whereas a furniture salesman could pass off a piece of crap as something highly valuable and dig into old folks' retirement savings if he senses that his clients are naive.

[peeted]

oh well, in hell

the pope and everything he stands for is unethical, every single one has acted unethically. there is no need to say that there are any exceptions because there are not. that is why i do not need to worry about the fallacy, its doesn't apply since this is not a faulty generalisation, its a fact. there is no issue in the destruction of the exception since there isn't a single one, in my personal opinion

The thing is it doesnt matter that there has never been a good pope, it doesnt make the job "pope" intrinsicly bad. Theres nothing to stop the next pope being good.

[mph4ever]

See? A logical fallacy means the structure of your argument is false. You have correct facts but are using them incorrectly to prove a point that they can't prove.

its open to interpretation so lets just leave it. suffice to say that my structure did not meet your high standards


Case in point is your last post where you say "the pope and everything he stands for is unethical, every single one has acted unethically. there is no need to say that there are any expections because there are not."
This is a broad, unprovable statement in the positive for one, not to mention easily provable to be false. For example, Celestine V was one of the most honest, and ethical persons to have ever existed. He was a Pope who truly tried to set an example of faith, living a simple, austere existence, and resigning the office once he had accomplished what he felt needed to be done.

i can see why you might think this but we are talking about the angel pope. the bloke who, on the basis that he was a hermit who made prophecies, told the college of cardinals that they would suffer divine retribution if they did not elect a pope soon. then they decided that the hermit who made the prophecy should be pope. he was a puppet for charles ii, and carried out all his requests for appointments of cardinals. never sat in rome but based himself in naples, of which charles ii was king. he was encouraged to abdicate by his successor, the canon lawyer, caetani, or boniface viii. if thats not unethical then i really do not know what is.


Tell you what, write me a paragraph on each Pope, pointing out specifically why each one was unethical, and you win. I will concede defeat. Hell, I'll even ask Smokey to ban me for a week.
You know what though? You can't, cause a lot of them were nice guys!

i can only think of john xxiii, but being a modern pope and not renouncing the atrocities of his more recent colleagues, i hold him in complete contempt. also, anyone who leads such entities as the congregation for the propagation of the faith must be unethical


Thats not the point. It's to get a laugh out of me, and the people who are watching them too maybe?


thats cool, we all like to make people laugh, even the victims get some satisfaction:)


You mean the one on here? I haven't updated that since I joined the forum...


no i was referring to this profile


My state of being... Well, I am a well educated, comfortably middle class American college student who has an active social life, a diverse group of interesting friends, and who just happens to get a laugh making people take the internet too seriously and pointing out their shortcomings (Same reason I did debate in high school. It's fun to watch people take seriously what you don't care much about, and for them to fail). I'm quite happy with that state of being



:chug:

:chug:

[Sunshine]

i can see why you might think this but we are talking about the angel pope.

...but you said every single pope ever was unethical.
And now you changed it to just that one?

[mph4ever]

The thing is it doesnt matter that there has never been a good pope, it doesnt make the job "pope" intrinsicly bad. Theres nothing to stop the next pope being good.

anybody who takes the job of chief executive of the catholic church must be unethical

[mph4ever]

...but you said every single pope ever was unethical.
And now you changed it to just that one?

no i didn't

[Sunshine]

the pope and everything he stands for is unethical, every single one has acted unethically. there is no need to say that there are any exceptions because there are not.

Are ya sure?

[mph4ever]

Are ya sure?
yes, angel pope and celestine v are the same person. Der U seems to think he was ok, i was just pointing out that maybe he wasn't

[Der Übermensch]

its open to interpretation so lets just leave it. suffice to say that my structure did not meet your high standards
It doesn't meet the bare minimum standards of basic logic.


i can see why you might think this but we are talking about the angel pope. the bloke who, on the basis that he was a hermit who made prophecies, told the college of cardinals that they would suffer divine retribution if they did not elect a pope soon. then they decided that the hermit who made the prophecy should be pope. he was a puppet for charles ii, and carried out all his requests for appointments of cardinals. never sat in rome but based himself in naples, of which charles ii was king. he was encouraged to abdicate by his successor, the canon lawyer, caetani, or boniface viii. if thats not unethical then i really do not know what is.
Agreed, people saw him as weak willed. Just look at what Dante did to the poor guy. But thats why he was not unethical. He was a simple man without pretensions. The people who used him were wrong to do so sure... He never wanted the job though, and he didn't need any encouragement to abdicate. The only reason he accepted in the first place was because it would be kind of hypocritical after his call to resolve the conclave.


i can only think of john xxiii, but being a modern pope and not renouncing the atrocities of his more recent colleagues, i hold him in complete contempt.
Wow... one pope. You proves your point soooo well!

How about you pick on Gregory I... I'd love to see you try and defame him!

Any seriously, of all the ones to pick from the modern era, you pick John XXIII? He was a great Pope. If there were any you would like I would think it's him. He is the one who really tried to modernize and reform the Church. He started Vatican II - sure, it didn't accomplish all it should have, but that's because the guy died before it was over....
If you are gonna pick on a recent Pope, do Pious XII or something. He at least had a lot of Skeletons in his closet.

also, anyone who leads such entities as the congregation for the propagation of the faith must be unethical
Militant atheism is just as much a propagation of faith as Catholicism. I've already gone over this though. Religion may be bunk, but that doesn't make religious leaders unethical. Religion helps a lot of people, even if it is a false creed.


no i was referring to this profile
O... I'm nothing like this in real life.
Well, except when I did debate team.

[Sunshine]

yes, angel pope and celestine v are the same person. Der U seems to think he was ok, i was just pointing out that maybe he wasn't

Yeah, but he's not "every single pope in existence."

You said all of them sucked.
Each and every one.
All unethical.
And have yet to prove it.

[peeted]

anybody who takes the job of chief executive of the catholic church must be unethical

Why does being the chief executive of the catholic church nesciserily make you a bad person?

Do you have to be a bad person to take the job of head of the catholic church? (and if so why?) or does the job itself nesciserily give you the property of being a bad person? (and if so why?).

Also define unethical, because to me it seems that its people who would take the job of pope as being some of the more strictly ethical people. In an age of moral relativism they are the people still saying that there is plain right and wrong.

[mph4ever]

Yeah, but he's not "every single pope in existence."

You said all of them sucked.
Each and every one.
All unethical.
And have yet to prove it.

anyone who holds that office must be, by their actions, unethical. anyone who misleads a very large group of people, on the basis that not to believe will result in an eternity in hell, has put such fear into people in the name of god the almighty, that now has a congregation of 1 billion, believes that some bloke walked the earth 2000 years ago and was the son of god and was born because an angel popped down and gave some bird called mary one, must be unethical. because its a great big lie and they perpetuate it every day. and create fear to keep people in line. its superpatriostism on a religious level. not much different to what that slime bag georgie bush has done to america recently. its as unethical as the tobacco companies not disclosing that smoking kills.

either that or they are all just plain fu'cking stupid

[mph4ever]

Why does being the chief executive of the catholic church nesciserily make you a bad person?


because you took the job.


Do you have to be a bad person to take the job of head of the catholic church? (and if so why?) or does the job itself nesciserily give you the property of being a bad person? (and if so why?).

they go hand in hand. bad job for a bad person.


Also define unethical, because to me it seems that its people who would take the job of pope as being some of the more strictly ethical people. In an age of moral relativism they are the people still saying that there is plain right and wrong.

to perpetuate lies is unethical. don't confuse morals and ethics, theory and practice are not always equal. they may be good people but if they really were good then they would refuse the job and never take it.

wide open

[peeted]

Telling a lie is telling something you know to be false, the pope doesnt know that what he says is false, he thinks its true, therefore he does not perpetuate lies.

I still dont quite understand weather you think you have to be a bad person to become the pope or weather becoming the pope makes you a bad person. It cant be both, because if you have to be a bad person to become the pope then becoming the pope cant make you a bad person.

[mph4ever]

Telling a lie is telling something you know to be false, the pope doesnt know that what he says is false, he thinks its true, therefore he does not perpetuate lies.

yes he does. he claims he is the vicar of christ, that he is gods representative on earth. do you think that once they take up the job then they have a chat with god? that doesn't happen, so they are unethical, the basic reason for their claim is undermined because god ain't calling them.



I still dont quite understand weather you think you have to be a bad person to become the pope or weather becoming the pope makes you a bad person. It cant be both, because if you have to be a bad person to become the pope then becoming the pope cant make you a bad person.
maybe its a hybrid. there aren't too many that take the job and don't know what they are letting themselves in for. they must know that they perpetuate lies. again, maybe they are all fu'cking stupid

[peeted]

Firstly I have no reason to believe that the pope doesnt believe what he says. Secondley (and far more importantly) i know that even if individual popes have known that what they say is wrong the job of pope in theory involves the belief in what they say. So if a pope lies he is just being a bad pope. And even if all popes so far have been bad at their jobs it doesnt mean that every future pope will be bad at their jobs as well.

And i have given a good reason for it not being a hybrid ("It cant be both, because if you have to be a bad person to become the pope then becoming the pope cant make you a bad person.").

[mph4ever]

Firstly I have no reason to believe that the pope doesnt believe what he says.

ever heard of grooming?


Secondley (and far more importantly) i know that even if individual popes have known that what they say is wrong the job of pope in theory involves the belief in what they say. So if a pope lies he is just being a bad pope. And even if all popes so far have been bad at their jobs it doesnt mean that every future pope will be bad at their jobs as well.

they mislead billions of people and cause some other billions to be impacted by "in god we trust" bullsh'it. they are bad


And i have given a good reason for it not being a hybrid ("It cant be both, because if you have to be a bad person to become the pope then becoming the pope cant make you a bad person.").

ok, lets look at the job description

pope wanted
needs to be able to perpetuate lies and mislead 1 billion people with an honest look on their face, speak latin and remain celibate, no wank'ing, nothing

tell me, only a person who would be willing to take up that job for the betterment of the church would do it. and if they were to take on such a job, understanding its requirements, then surely they are unethical

[peeted]

How is any of what you said of any relevence to what i said? Why bother quoting diffrent bits if your not going to make any actual reffrence to them?

[Der Übermensch]

How is any of what you said of any relevence to what i said? Why bother quoting diffrent bits if your not going to make any actual reffrence to them?

Because he eschews logic for rhetoric.
If he had to actually refute the points being made, this discussion would have ended after I made my second post on the matter.

[mph4ever]

Because he eschews logic for rhetoric.
If he had to actually refute the points being made, this discussion would have ended after I made my second post on the matter.

agreed

[Sunshine]

Wait.
You realize he's talking about *you*, right?

[mph4ever]

sure as hell

[Sunshine]

Well..I'm right confused then.
But awright.

[Der Übermensch]

Wait.
You realize he's talking about *you*, right?
Well at least he understands how dimwitted he is...

[mph4ever]

Well at least he understands how dimwitted he is...

about as dim as a catholic

[Smokey D]

It's pretty ridiculous how anyone can think an honest mistake counts as being unethical.

[Der Übermensch]

about as dim as a catholic

Yep. About so.

[mph4ever]

It's pretty ridiculous how anyone can think an honest mistake counts as being unethical.

pray tell, who made an honest mistake?

[Smokey D]

I reckon at least some popes honestly believe in what they do.

[mph4ever]

smokey, we have to understand the level of deceit we are dealing with. its a history of lies, perpetuated by pope after pope, and thats unethical

[Smokey D]

You can't call it deceit if it's an honest belief though. That's just being wrong.

[Der Übermensch]

You are making a completely unfounded assumption on the mindset of people long dead. Fallacy of consequent.

[mph4ever]

here we go again, i lose since the facts are true but the structure is sh'it

[Der Übermensch]

Pretty much. You are making a statement that can't be proven without making a non sequitur.

[Smokey D]

No I call you out on it being true at all. There's absolutely no reason to believe every pope who ever lived set out to deliberately deceive the world. It's far far more likely they, probably erroneously, believe in the thing they're trying to convince the world of. That's not deceit that's mistake.

[mph4ever]

You are making a completely unfounded assumption on the mindset of people long dead. Fallacy of consequent.

thats history, you have to distort it a little to really grasp what was going on

[Der Übermensch]

Hehe. I remind you of my offer.
Write a paragraph for each pope and why they were bad/unethical men, and I will have Smokey ban me for a week.

thats history, you have to distort it a little to really grasp what was going on

If you do that, then you have a distorted view of history...

Distorted: contorted: strained or wrenched out of normal shape; "old trees with contorted branches"; "scorched and distorted fragments of steel"; "trapped ...
deformed: so badly formed or out of shape as to be ugly; "deformed thalidomide babies"; "his poor distorted limbs"; "an ill-shapen vase"; "a limp caused by a malformed foot"; "misshapen old fingers"
having an intended meaning altered or misrepresented; "many of the facts seemed twisted out of any semblance to reality"; "a perverted translation of the poem

[mph4ever]

Hehe. I remind you of my offer.
Write a paragraph for each pope and why they were bad/unethical men, and I will have Smokey ban me for a week.


how would you like it presented?

[Der Übermensch]

Well, chronological would be best, but if you want to go alphabetical, be my guest.
I just want a full paragraph, and each argument must be logically sound and demonstrative from their actions, not an assumption on their mindset.

I have the right to refute any point made, and thats the end of it. Smokey will then judge. He understands the basic principals of logic I think :p

[mph4ever]

Hehe. I remind you of my offer.
Write a paragraph for each pope and why they were bad/unethical men, and I will have Smokey ban me for a week.


If you do that, then you have a distorted view of history...

Distorted: contorted: strained or wrenched out of normal shape; "old trees with contorted branches"; "scorched and distorted fragments of steel"; "trapped ...
deformed: so badly formed or out of shape as to be ugly; "deformed thalidomide babies"; "his poor distorted limbs"; "an ill-shapen vase"; "a limp caused by a malformed foot"; "misshapen old fingers"
having an intended meaning altered or misrepresented; "many of the facts seemed twisted out of any semblance to reality"; "a perverted translation of the poem


so we should just take his word for it

[Der Übermensch]

so we should just take his word for it

No we should take the historical record of his actions as the best way to judge him. It is the only thing approaching an objective standard.

[Sunshine]

What makes you think that at least some of those popes didn't honestly and truthfully believe what they were preaching?
I mean, they're just people too.
People like any standard Catholic who believes in the Catholic church.

There is no way you can prove that all, if any, of the popes were like HAY IM GOING TO LIE TO THESE PEOPLE JUST FOR KICKS.

[mph4ever]

Well, chronological would be best, but if you want to go alphabetical, be my guest.
I just want a full paragraph, and each argument must be logically sound and demonstrative from their actions, not an assumption on their mindset.

how about a spreadsheet with a couple of columns?

name occupation unethical
pope A pope yes
pope AA pope hell yeh
pope AB pope yup

[QUOTE=Der Übermensch]
I have the right to refute any point made, and thats the end of it. Smokey will then judge. He understands the basic principals of logic I think :p

oh, ok, smokey is god, you are the pope and i'm christian

[Smokey D]

I'm just asking you to show that all popes (and by extension all religious figures everywhere) are out to deliberately deceive people.

[mph4ever]

I mean, they're just people too.
People like any standard Catholic who believes in the Catholic chu rch.
[QUOTE=Sunshine]
some catholics are more equal than others, kiss the ring

[QUOTE=Sunshine]
There is no way you can prove that all, if any, of the popes were like HAY IM GOING TO LIE TO THESE PEOPLE JUST FOR KICKS.
they are unethical

[mph4ever]

I'm just asking you to show that all popes (and by extension all religious figures everywhere) are out to deliberately deceive people.

why would you include all religions?

[Der Übermensch]

how about a spreadsheet with a couple of columns?

name occupation unethical
pope A pope yes
pope AA pope hell yeh
pope AB pope yup
Sure, go for it.

oh, ok, smokey is god, you are the pope and i'm christian
Well propose a different Judge then. A mod seems to be the best way to go.

[Smokey D]

Why wouldn't you? If the pope is deceiving people everyone else who attempts to convince people of their religion is also deceiving people.

[mph4ever]

thats your extension, not mine. thats more like a militant atheist

[mph4ever]

Sure, go for it.


are you using office '03 or '07?


Well propose a different Judge then. A mod seems to be the best way to go.

i wasn't complaining

[Smokey D]

How is the pope being deceptive but not the Dalai Lama?

[Sunshine]

they are unethical

Holy ****, what part of "prove it" is so hard to understand?

You keep spitting out the same opinion, over and over again.
You say they're unethical, I ask why you'd say that, you say they're all a bunch of liars, I ask you to prove it, and your proof is just your unfounded beginning statement.

[mph4ever]

How is the pope being deceptive but not the Dalai Lama?



why are you bringing south american goats into this?

[Der Übermensch]

are you using office '03 or '07?
'08

i wasn't complaining
Ok. Came off as a bit snide though.

[mph4ever]

Holy ****, what part of "prove it" is so hard to understand?

You keep spitting out the same opinion, over and over again.
You say they're unethical, I ask why you'd say that, you say they're all a bunch of liars, I ask you to prove it, and your proof is just your unfounded beginning statement.

i thought we were talking about unethical jobs, and the pope's is unethical

[Sunshine]

Why?

Also, again, you said each and every pope was unethical. Not that the job was unethical. That each person was.

[Smokey D]

why are you bringing south american goats into this?

... if you don't know who the Dalai Lama is I'm not going to even bother trying to talk to you.

[mph4ever]

because its not wrong to have sex for any other reason than pro-creation

[Sunshine]

Uh.

[mph4ever]

... if you don't know who the Dalai Lama is I'm not going to even bother trying to talk to you.


oh, you mean that divine bloke from nepal who was chosen by the previous bloke because they are so holy.

thats about as interesting as a goat

[1338 h4x0r]

oh, you mean that divine bloke from nepal who was chosen by the previous bloke because they are so holy.

thats about as interesting as a goat

lol

"Free Nepal!"

[Der Übermensch]

Hahahahaha. Wow.

[mph4ever]

hehehehe