Proselytizing: sometimes morally unsound?

Originally posted by twhitehead
If there is no real intent, then it is only fantasizing.

Yes, but how to differentiate between fantasizing and actual intent...
BTW a woman just weeks ago said "the devil made me do it" after being accused of murdering her child.
So people still use these wildly implausible,ridiculous arguments to this day rather than saying out and out that she has mental problems, as if appealing to a Christian ideology is going to be a stronger argument. (I'm assuming her lawyer told her to say it, perhaps appealing to any belief the prevailing magistrate might have had in Christianity )

Originally posted by Eladar
Are you trying to say that your view in judgement is correct?

Or do you allow yourself to have a skewed view making your judgement lacking validity?

Lets not start jumping to these silly conclusions. (You may say that you haven't but you're trying to set him up)

I'll put it out there and say that in general atheists are a bit better at 'judging' than theists. However in the same breath I would say that by and large we are all fairly equal-especially when it comes to hindsight.

And there is a difference in judging and observing, a difference that you seem not to really get...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now suppose the poison was something that was always available, so he didn't 'prepare' it.
Now suppose that he wasn't quite yet 'in the act of carrying it out'.
Surely you can imagine a scenario in which no actions, but only thoughts took place and in which the lack of actions were in no way attributable to him but to some extraneous circumstances?

If the man only thought something, and didn't do anything, didn’t attempt anything, didn’t start anything, didn't say anything to anyone etc.. then to my way of thinking no crime has taken place, nothing immoral has happened (I see morality as governing behaviour, although I understand why others might disagree), and I still don't see there being a thoughtcrime .

Originally posted by Eladar
Are you trying to say that your view in judgement is correct?

Or do you allow yourself to have a skewed view making your judgement lacking validity?

You sound drunk.

Originally posted by JS357
In common usage the phrase 'telling people what to think' is taken to convey disapproval of that act. But we all do it, at least if we try to get people to think a certain way about something. We use devices: logical argument, appeal to emotions, authority, etc. the moral judgment seems to involve the legitimacy of the devices, and perhaps the likely outcomes of the thoughts conveyed.

Yes. This is a debate and discussion forum. We all tell people what we think, so to speak, and ask them why they think what they think. It's par for the course. I don't really get what apathist is lamenting given the arena we are in. And I don't get its relevance to the OP which is about how superstitious notions could arguable be wielded in a way that was morally unsound.

Originally posted by FMF
Not really. I think you missed the chance to contribute properly to the thread. Even if I were to figure out if you were referring to people who might use their ideologies to manipulate vulnerable people, or whether you were just talking about everybody and anybody discussing what their ideologies are - "telling people what to think" in that sense - you haven't off ...[text shortened]... when or how promoting ideas might sometimes be morally unsound. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Buddy! It was a typo! But you are a very deep person. I'm watching you now.

Originally posted by apathist
Buddy! It was a typo! But you are a very deep person. I'm watching you now.

Yes, it was a typo as I said in my post to you on page 1. It'd be interesting to hear what connection there is between what you meant to say and the children and vulnerable people mentioned in the OP.

Originally posted by sonship
Don't look now, but I doubt that any two human beings can converse together without one telling the other what to think.

Have you ever proselytized the 'torturer god' aspect of your ideology to children or people with diminished mental or emotional capacity to discern what you are trying to do to them? Or does the moral imperative to try to not damage or coerce such people inhibit you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am pretty sure that charges of attempted murder have been made and successfully prosecuted on little more than a phone conversation or chat in a bar.

On this thread, I am not really interested in law, crime and punishment. But your comment about a threat made during a conversation is interesting. This would be morally unsound to my way of thinking. And I would be surprised if the charge in such circumstances was "attempted murder"; maybe it would be "intimidation" or "criminal harassment". I would imagine that "attempted murder" would be defined by way of different actions and would generally be seen as a more serious offence.

Originally posted by FMF
You sound drunk.

I'm sure to an alcoholic everyone appears drunk.

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm sure to an alcoholic everyone appears drunk.

Do you think proselytizing an ideology about billions of non-believers being consigned to a furnace forever - by way of angry revenge - to children or people with diminished mental or emotional capacity/stability creates any moral issues for the proselytizer to consider about his or her own actions?

Originally posted by FMF
You sound drunk.

Or thumbing persons again (not comments)

Originally posted by FMF
On this thread, I am not really interested in law, crime and punishment. But your comment about a threat made during a conversation is interesting. This would be morally unsound to my way of thinking. And I would be surprised if the charge in such circumstances was "attempted murder"; maybe it would be "intimidation" or "criminal harassment". I would imagine tha ...[text shortened]... ld be defined by way of different actions and would generally be seen as a more serious offence.

Good murderers , and just physical assaulters in general don't make threats. Especially not repeated or loud ones.
They act. They don't talk.

Originally posted by FMF
Do you think proselytizing an ideology about billions of non-believers being consigned to a furnace forever - by way of angry revenge - to children or people with diminished mental or emotional capacity/stability creates any moral issues for the proselytizer to consider about his or her own actions?

Here's my take on the logic that rationalizes such proselytizing: the fate of the unsaved is so dire that anything that any behavior toward them that stands a chance of leading to their salvation is justified.

The remaining moral risk, of course, is that the choice of behavior might be wrong and/or a trick of Satan.

Originally posted by JS357
Here's my take on the logic that rationalizes such proselytizing: the fate of the unsaved is so dire that anything that any behavior toward them that stands a chance of leading to their salvation is justified.

I will be interested to see whether anyone comes forward to argue that such behavior towards children and adults (or at least those who are vulnerable in the ways I touched upon) can be rationalized and is justified So far nobody has (unless I've overlooked a post somewhere). It will be interesting if nobody does.