Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (12397)	4/25/2001 6:53:31 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If the point is none of these, then what IS the point? One of my major points was that actions follow beliefs, and that the consequences of actions are not equal in the amount of pleasure or pain they inflict or engender. The link to the Christian killings was only an example of the point. To be fair, the point could have been demonstrated with links to Hitler, to the Huns, or to a million others. The example is secondary to the principle. Now, in terms of MT: I do not know the effect her actions had upon her own balance of joy and despair; nor, do I consider it very relevant. Her power affected millions and millions. It is the action or inaction that resulted from her beliefs, and the impact they had on these millions of others in terms of consequences--it is this that I address. She had a very extreme belief system. I think most of us can agree on that. Leaving aside whether it was good for her, or her future as the 31 millionth bride of Christ...what was the utilitarian consequences of her actions and inactions? It is one thing when people's actions have a negligible impact on the lives of others. Certainly, our concern for the larger community does not justify spending an inordinate amount of time on such a point. However, when they had an extreme belief system that was essentially imposed by a slurry of propaganda stirred into human need and suffering--it behooves us to consider whether the consequences were or were not salutary for these MILLIONS. The fact that her actions may have helped herself and certain dictators and criminals, as well as the Catholic Church is irrelevant to my point. If we can detremine that her beliefs/actions caused a great deal of harm, then we ought to be prepared to place law and justice ahead of someone's vows, the next time this occurs. CYA later. Gotta work...

To: The Philosopher who wrote (12397)	4/26/2001 12:43:35 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 82486

I think you are largely correct, though not entirely. However, I am interested in numbers I trust more than those so far on offer. Why? Because the magnitude of the numbers Solon quoted is meant to overwhelm us with the folly and barbarism of Christendom, and I think the story is mixed. The problem is precisely historical disentanglement. As I said in an earlier argument, Mafiosi are nominal Catholics, but they do not make an effort to conform their behavior to the rules, but instead act as if they can make a fool out of God and bribe their way off the hook. You do not look to them for the results of Catholic belief. In the same way, the Conquistadors were motivated by the search for gold, not by Catholicism, and the Crusaders, though they may have sometimes been motivated by religion, often were mere adventurers seeking their fortunes. This is not to say that some persecution was not piously motivated, just that one should not mix all things ostensibly associated with religion together without discrimination. As you say, it is hard to know how Christianity may have affected the propensity to violence, when pagan Europe already showed quite a tendency in that direction, including selective religious persecution, as in the crucifixion of Christians. I do not intend to argue the matter now, but want to point out that it is by no means clear that Europe was worse off, morally, for becoming Christian..........