22 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAgreed, but that I do not agree with their cause doesn't mean that the means to promote it are not legitimate. Raising awareness through fasting can only be harmful to the faster, so I don't see what's wrong with it.
Irrespective, I don't see why others should decide that the film should not be allowed to be shown. This is simply one sector of society trying to impose their skewed view of reality on everyone else. Sod that! Let them die.
Religions leaders promoting such behaviour, however, would be despicable (especially since the cause is just a blockbuster movie) but I interpreted Dr.S thread as refering to individual consistency alone.
22 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaDoesn't really matter, by protesting against it they're just giving it more publicity. Feeding the beast they hope to destroy, how ironic.
Agreed, but that I do not agree with their cause doesn't mean that the means to promote it are not legitimate. Raising awareness through fasting can only be harmful to the faster, so I don't see what's wrong with it.
Religions leaders promoting such behaviour, however, would be despicable (especially since the cause is just a blockbuster movie) but I interpreted Dr.S thread as refering to individual consistency alone.
24 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaI did comment upon them. You have yet to provide a coherent
I've already made my points in this thread. You're free to comment on them.
And I didn't know there were style points given for 'exploring uncomfortable territory'.
definition of suicide that permits you to reasonably criticize anyone
else's definitions or questions.
Provide one, then we can see whether or not your disdain at #1s
questions is warranted.
Nemesio
P.S., There are no 'points,' but I'd rather someone ask hard questions
than peddle the same nonsense repeatedly.
24 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioIt was coherent to me then and it is still coherent now.
I did comment upon them. You have yet to provide a coherent
definition of suicide that permits you to reasonably criticize anyone
else's definitions or questions.
Provide one, then we can see whether or not your disdain at #1s
questions is warranted.
Nemesio
P.S., There are no 'points,' but I'd rather someone ask hard questions
than peddle the same nonsense repeatedly.
That you don't agree is another matter, but with such desire to defend your buddy I wouldn't expect you to, either.
Edit: And my disdain at no1marauderogatory is not at his questions but at his personality.
25 May 06
Originally posted by Conrau KTwo reasons why this cannot make sense:
I don't believe the Catholic church has such a stance on suicide anyway. Suicide is usually understood as an unwilled act; the culmination of a serious derangement. And the Catholic church generally doesn't have the opinion that people burn in hell for the rest of eternity. The consensus is that people can be saved through metanoia given through Jesus' salvation. If it did have such an opnion, it would be in grave concern for half its priests. 😲
If all suicide is an unwilled act and therefore not sin then why on earth is it listed in the Bible as sin?
If an action whilst in a state of serious derangement is not sin then sin cannot exist as no normal person would do anything to defy or upset God or risk loosing thier place in heaven unless they were in a state of serious derangement, would they?
Oh and does all this mean that if we sin by mistake (an unwilled act) then it is not sin? I think the Bible would disagree with that one.
25 May 06
The book and the movie would never have sold so well if people didnt thrive on controversy. The more people try to ban them the better they will sell. Its rather like the 9/11 bombers. They must be turning in thier graves as thier actions had the direct effect of making thier supposed oponent, Bush, stronger while gaining nothing for thier own cause.
The whole philosophy behind terrorism is flawed. Does anyone know of examples where terrorism has worked in favour of the terrorist?
25 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzNothing stinks worse than a stinky hypocrite.
This is simply one sector of society trying to impose their skewed view of reality on everyone else. Sod that! Let them die.
Coming from one of the worst state worshippers on these boards your statment defines the word "hypocrisy".
25 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaBut that's precisely the point, Palynka. Why would 20 seconds be
I'm not interested in a repeat of a fruitless discussion that ended with you repeatedly asking me for defining in seconds or minutes what I consider imminent death.
'imminent' but not 21? Or, why would 299 seconds be 'imminent'
but not 300? 1 hour, but not 3? 1 day, but not 2? 1 week, but not 3?
It may be clear in your head, and it may not. I suspect it is not clear,
for it it were, you would be able to articulate it such that I and the
community can understand.
And, as it pertains to this discussion, why would imminence be a
consideration? It will take 3 weeks (on average) for the strikers to
perish without food. It may not be imminent, but it is certain? Is their
action suicide? And, if it is, how can could a c(/C)hurch be supportive
of it?
Nemesio
26 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioThere is no line. Your insistence in compartimentalizing such actions into hermetic boxes is why I think you are being pedantic.
But that's precisely the point, Palynka. Why would 20 seconds be
'imminent' but not 21? Or, why would 299 seconds be 'imminent'
but not 300? 1 hour, but not 3? 1 day, but not 2? 1 week, but not 3?
I already answered your last question. In that case, imminence of death is irrelevant since the ultimate purpose of their deaths would not be to end their lives but to fight for a cause.
It is similar to a soldier volunteering for a war. If he dies, under my criteria, it would not be suicide since his death is not an objective in itself, but a risk he takes.
26 May 06
Originally posted by PalynkaA soldier is not intending to die but rather taking the risk. A hunger striker is specifically using the threat of death (suicide) to influence another. If death is the result then there is no way it can be called anything other than suicide as death was the intention. A suicide bomber on the other hand may or may not have the intention of dying. Some would die as a neccessary side effect of the action whereas others may consider the death neccessary for martyrdom and therefore definately suicide.
There is no line. Your insistence in compartimentalizing such actions into hermetic boxes is why I think you are being pedantic.
I already answered your last question. In that case, imminence of death is irrelevant since the ultimate purpose of their deaths would not be to end their lives but to fight for a cause.
It is similar to a soldier volunteerin ...[text shortened]... ria, it would not be suicide since his death is not an objective in itself, but a risk he takes.
A tricky case is where someone tells another "give me something or I kill you." Although refusal may lead to death it could hardly fall under the category of sinful suicide though it could still be called suicide non-theless.
26 May 06
Originally posted by twhiteheadDeath is not the intention in a hunger strike - the intention is to obtain a favourable result or at least influence the minds of those in power.
A soldier is not intending to die but rather taking the risk. A hunger striker is specifically using the threat of death (suicide) to influence another. If death is the result then there is no way it can be called anything other than suicide as death was the intention. A suicide bomber on the other hand may or may not have the intention of dying. Some wou ...[text shortened]... fall under the category of sinful suicide though it could still be called suicide non-theless.
26 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerAre you saying that it is OK to commit otherwise sinful acts as long as they are being used as a means to a good end?
Death is not the intention in a hunger strike - the intention is to obtain a favourable result or at least influence the minds of those in power.
Suppose the government agreed to ban the movie if the protesters raped every non-Christian woman in India. Would those rapes be sinful?