No. Content free rants that make sweeping and hostile claims against any group, unsupported by facts or logic, are rants. (I generally consider suggestions of murder to be hostile; YMMV.)
Actually, the second one asked what the world would be like if an extremely large majority of people were murdered for their beliefs. A question that asked “what would it be like if X ceased to exist” would be framed, “What would it be like if X ceased to exist?” This removes from the question the onus of including the ethical implications of murder from those who wished to see the end result. If one wished to simply posit that religion disappeared from current humanity, one might propose a situation where a chemical released into the world’s waters, (either deliberately or as a result of environmental changes), or a shift in the type of radiation arriving on Earth from the sun changed the brain structures of humans, eliminating those parts of the Temporal Lobe or the physical aspects proposed in the Theory of Mind that various neurologists have speculated gave rise to religious belief.
It is a rant in the form of an attack. It was not even worthy to be posted, although the Pit is as good a place as any for it.
(And people who employ “chillax” outside the context of a teen bitch fest really have no right to be in possession of a keyboard. )
I made no claims. I was just proposing the idea of executing them all. And I never once mentioned murder. I’m offended that you would accuse me of such a thing. I’m talking about proper legal execution (which isn’t murder).
That’s science fiction - it could never really happen in the real world. Execution is the only way to rid the world of large numbers of people - at least the only way that exists in reality and not in science fiction.
Also execution makes it a deliberate act by the world’s non-religious - a decision made. If it would appeal more to your delicate sensibilities then I suppose we could lobotomise all the religious people but then we’d have to keep them alive which would be a lot of work, feeding them and stuff.
By gosh, you’re right. If they’d only killed the observant Jews, they’d have had to let the Nuremburg defendants go! That’s not genocide at all! Oh wait, yes it is.
Sorry. In order to arrange the “execution” of the majority of the world’s population, you would need to invent a wholly bogus crime. Your semantic games fail to remove the taint of murder that you proposed.
“It’s a thought experiment.” Right?
You are not fooling anyone with your nonsense and you are embarrasing yourself with your doubletalk. At least have the dignity and honesty to stand up for your own nonsense or the courage to refrain from running away from your own words.
I am one of the many atheists on SDMB, and am VERY hostile to religion (not as much as some, though).
Yet mutantmoose’s mass-murderous “though experiment” was thoroughly reprehensible to me, even as a supposedly harmless abstraction. 'Tis why I didn’t participate in the thread, even to express disapproval.
Genocide just isn’t funny or amusing in any way, and there are much, MUCH better ways to discuss the idea of humanity without religion.
I don’t think that the slaughter of religious people only would qualify as genocide since she or he would not be targeting or wiping out one entire “genetic designation.” (Whatever that means these days.)
Mutantmoose is advocating the murder of many dopers, our families and our loved ones and world wide slaughter. The only reason that he gives in his OP is that "We can finally proceed without having to accede to the insane wishes of religious groups all the time… We may still have political differences but at least the supernatural is out of the equation.
Why is this not jerkish behavior? (I understand why some mods may not be offended by what he says, but do you mods really think that Mutant isn’t trying to be one (a jerk, not a mod)? And do you mods believe that she or he doesn’t appear to intentionally be one in the eyes of many who participate?
If this isn’t jerkish even for the Pit, it certainly leaves a lot of leeway.
Also, why are Mutant’s comments not “hate speech”? Since religious people are persecuted and some are put to death for their beliefs, this is getting into a sensitive area.
Answers from moderators will especially be appreciated.
Yup, it’s genocide. As a thought experiment it’s dubious even with the best framing. But to implore anybody to take the proposal lightly is reprehensible.
Damn, Zoe had to go and ruin it. I was going to suggest that much of the discussion in this thread about genocide, the validity of the idea, and whatnot actually belongs in the other thread, and that this thread had been answered after about post 3 (give or take the wrap up of exchange between Oakminster and Marley23). Thus, this thread be closed. Now Zoe has asked some ATMB questions.
mutantmoose, I grant that the two threads are asking different questions, and thus makes the content in each different, if similar. I do, however, think that your description as “what would the world be like if you removed all the religious people?”
is not accurate. You certainly didn’t frame the question right if that was what you were asking.
And I find your proposal of mass slaughter of the bulk of humanity to be atrocious, whether or not one wishes to use the word “genocide” or “religicide” or “legal execution of anyone who believes differently than I do” or whatever. And frankly, there’s a strong bit of irony there that you are blasting religion for all the negative things it has done, and your solution is to execute any religious believer. Yeah, that will balance the books. Note: if your problem is that the other guys are bad people, you don’t win the moral high ground by stooping to their level. Zoe said:
There’s being a jerk and then being a jerk. The rules have consistently been interpreted that one can make derogatory remarks against large groups of people to which some members of the board belong without that translating into insults against board members. Similarly, this does not constitute a death threat. While I have to agree that the proposal as stated is atrocious and inspires feelings of revulsion, I don’t feel it crosses the line into the territory that deems being warned. Though certainly placing it in the Pit allows responses of the appropriate character to the idea proposed.
Actually, he did not get around to advocating such a plan; he proposed a (rather stupid and inflammatory) “what if” scenario. In addition, he did not target any Dopers. Just as posters are allowed to claim that Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, etc. are stupid, despite there being Dopers in each of those categories, as long as the remarks are not directed at the Dopers, themselves, the comments are allowed.
It is probably “jerkish” but he has not yet established a patteren indicating that he is a jerk. Once the booze or meth is out of his system in a couple of days, his behavior will probably go back to the form he previously displayed and it would be a shame to ban him for a couple of days of lunacy.
Well, son-of-a-bitch! (Can I say that in here? Yep. It’s on the Infrequent Use Okay List.)
I was hoping no one would notice that he wasn’t making a physical threat. (Leave it to an Irishman to be particular about wording.
“Feelings of revulsion?” The anguished cries of little Amish girls alone should rate more than an “eeww…” from you.
I’m holding out for a warning for being a jerk. Mods know one when they see one. That’s the rule – if only they can see that advocating genocide is really pushing the envelope.
pravnik, thank you kindly for setting me straight about genocide.
I was trying to keep my comment safe for ATMB. I was not comparing my feelings to what I feel when I hear something has coconut in it or a see a squished bug. Really, I wasn’t.
I would like the answer to this question as well. I would be careful not to threaten to kill any particular Doper, just all of them that fit my hated group in the entire world. Not violating the rules against bigotry or being a jerk?
Didn’t stop me from being warned, nor anyone else. It’s always been a single action thing, to the point where I’ve asked that the rule be changed to “acting like a jerk” rather than being one.
And I must remind you that this was not started in the Pit. So you shouldn’t try to use Pit level rules against it. We have to stick with IMHO rules, where using fuck in a certain way gets you Warned.
No one is going to buy it, Tom. Read his OP. He anticipates specific problems and encourages imagining a world without superstition. That is the extent of his “what if.” The rest of it is a “we need to do this” approach as reflected in his SUBJECT HEADING. Even he says that it is his PROPOSAL.
I didn’t say anything about banning him. Do you want to ban him, Tom, if he has a pattern of this kind of post? There is a similar post from him on this subject. But I had much rather ban the disingenuous. There is a rule against that too.
As for targeting his fellow Dopers: He did that only if any of his fellow Dopers are religious. What are the chances of that?
I will leave you to brand yourself, if you choose, before your fellow Dopers. His OP is there for all to see. Was he advocating or was it a “what if” scenario? Did he assume that the Dopers here were non-religious or was he aware that he was advocating the murder of other Dopers? Would advocating their murder INCLUDE targeting them?
Given who you are, this will be my last post in this thread.
I retreat to my private pub to ready myself for a 6am soccer game between the Danes and the Dutch. The Danes are so yesterday in my life. And Doper JoseB is Spanish but lives in the Netherlands and is a SDMB friend. Tuborg vs. Sangria at 6am. Which goes best with coconut cake?
The Amish? They don’t drive, do they? They should be easy to round up.
One of the things that is most annoying about the religious bunch is the way they try to lump themselves in with the blacks, the jews and the homosexuals. Ultimately your religion is a choice you have made. It doesn’t matter how devout you are or how much you have convinced yourself that it is an intrinsic part of your personality. It is still ultimately a decision you have made to be religious. You can change that decision at any time.
It’s the same as deciding what clothes to wear on any particular day. There are lots of groups of people who make choices which I disagree with eg in the political arena there are the nazis or the communists. I am free to disagree with whomever I choose.
Since the religious ones seem so enamoured of the choice they have made there is little chance of them changing their mind so I was just mulling over ways of ridding the world of them given that argument isn’t going to work. This led me naturally to execution as a viable method.
Now obviously I am going to be unable to execute a large percentage of the world’s population. The notion is so fantastical as to be in the realm of fantasy. Personally I’m suprised that anyone has taken me seriously. However I’m quite glad that some of you have done because it’s doubled the humour value for me. I haven’t stopped laughing for about three days. It’s not jerkish - I just have quite a vibrant imagination. Unlikely and fantastical scenarios come quite easily to me. And the pit thread has been quite funny so it was all worth it just for that.
As the above poster mentioned I posted it in IMHO because that’s all it was - just my opinion (outrageous though it is) and not a rant. I honestly didn’t expect all this kerfuffle - I thought a couple of people would laugh and a couple of people would tell me not to be stupid and that would be that.
But don’t worry, I’ll get bored of this quite soon and move on to something else.
)