Rate Thread
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is it wrong to demonize "Rosary Rattlers" as they are sworn enemies of GLBT?
Bowyn Aerrow Wrote:The question is inconsistent. Revenge is not a logical thing, so how can you ask if it is logical? You bar emotional (moral) comments, but then try to justify an animal (emotional) instinct reaction to pay back.

Revenge is a moral issue, inspired by emotion. It's impact is moral in nature, with consequences both to the doer and the victim.

In order to understand this, give me a logical reason to 'pay back' one based without emotion. You can't. Logic dictates that an emotional response will trigger an emotional response in return.

Logically, humans act and react more than they think and reason. If I slap you, you will punch me, that would lead to me beating you with my cane, which leads to you grabbing a knife or a gun....

Logically the outcome you desire would be one that favors your position, thus not feeding that emotional tit for tat response ultimately defuses the situation. It is difficult for two people to have a fight if one refuses to fight.

I don't believe it has to be motivated for a desire for revenge. Kill your enemy before he kills all of you as he has already killed enough doesn't sound like revenge to me. It sounds like survival tactics. I'm not sure game theory uses revenge in its nomenclature, but it would definitely cover what I'm talking about. So if it uses the word revenge, clearly it can be spoken of logically; and by the way, who in the know, believes emotions are not logical? that is spock-era sci-fi thinking. Not current A.I. theory at all, if I am not mistaken.
In any event, I don't think you can just dismiss the question. I did not mean to bar emotional comments. I don't think they are synonymous with moral comments as opposed to ethical comments. I think all three are different things. None of them reach me. I was asking you to explain it in a way I can understand, or I can't understand your explanaition. It seems like a tautology. I don't hear moral or ethical. Emotional, is logical and I can listen to that. But not emotions that are based on opinion about what god wants. Or what the universe wants. I can understand emotional arguements based on the psychological and sociological needs of humans as actually demonstrated by these sciences. But not "It's just plain wrong to burn 'em at the stake in spite of that's what they do to us, metaphorically if not any longer literally."
The reason to pay back is either to stop or to teach. Not necessarily to pay back. I say destroy the church to stop them destroying us. It is a strategey of survival.
Is my position clear? could we start this as a seperat thread? I think it can't be covered as a sub-plot here adequetely and I think it diverts attention from the main point:
Let's destroy the Catholic Church!Confusedmile:
Reply



Messages In This Thread
Is it wrong to demonize "Rosary Rattlers" as they are sworn enemies of GLBT? - by nullnaught - 12-01-2011, 06:46 AM

Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Twincest: Right Or Wrong? Dreamer 44 4,272 07-28-2013, 09:38 PM
Last Post: kidchameleon
  GLBT Power; Underdogs, or Masters of the Universe. WesHollywood 15 2,637 11-19-2011, 09:35 PM
Last Post: WesHollywood
  What is wrong with being a kid? geno 9 1,444 07-27-2011, 03:40 PM
Last Post: silverlight2xx6
  Of electing the wrong guy? Worried about the next presidential elections in the USA? princealbertofb 8 1,563 12-20-2008, 10:33 AM
Last Post: fredv3b

Forum Jump:


Recently Browsing
4 Guest(s)

© 2002-2024 GaySpeak.com