Right Wing Discussion Thread XV: A New Hoppe

[Salus Maior]

1.And by that same metric, Salus Maior, your religion's false to the nonbelievers and certainly to secular states so your notions of things like conscription need not apply to those not of your faith.

2.So, funnily enough, the Quran (from the cursory readings I've just done, at least) seemingly pushes a similar idea, especially insofar that at least one Sura outright states that it's morally righteous to free an enslaved person.

So, I reiterate as a summary of your statements, "Biblical slavery good, Quranic slavery bad."

1. First of all, no shit Sherlock. And my metrics for things like conscription are secular, hell, I'm mostly echoing CM here.

2. Good for the Qur'an. I'm not arguing against the Qur'an I'm arguing against the Islamists in this bloody thread who are saying that slavery should be a continuing practice according to Shari'a. I am arguing that is wrong. Do you agree with me, yes or no?

And again, I haven't once said that Christians practicing slavery is a good or right thing.

[Genivaria]

I have to ask, why couldn't someone renounce their citizenship and therefore lose the essential rights of citizenship yet still remain a resident?
Foreign nationals who are non-citizen residents do still have rights.

[Genivaria]

1.And by that same metric, Salus Maior, your religion's false to the nonbelievers and certainly to secular states so your notions of things like conscription need not apply to those not of your faith.

2.So, funnily enough, the Quran (from the cursory readings I've just done, at least) seemingly pushes a similar idea, especially insofar that at least one Sura outright states that it's morally righteous to free an enslaved person.

So, I reiterate as a summary of your statements, "Biblical slavery good, Quranic slavery bad."

1. First of all, no shit Sherlock. And my metrics for things like conscription are secular, hell, I'm mostly echoing CM here.

2. Good for the Qur'an. I'm not arguing against the Qur'an I'm arguing against the Islamists in this bloody thread who are saying that slavery should be a continuing practice according to Shari'a. I am arguing that is wrong. Do you agree with me, yes or no?

And again, I haven't once said that Christians practicing slavery is a good or right thing.

Salus I have to say, we disagree on ALOT, but I really respect you.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I have to ask, why couldn't someone renounce their citizenship and therefore lose the essential rights of citizenship yet still remain a resident?
Foreign nationals who are non-citizen residents do still have rights.

Because they want the essential rights of citizenship, but don't want to be conscripted? Not an unreasonable want in my opinion.

[Salus Maior]

Salus I have to say, we disagree on ALOT, but I really respect you.

Aw, that was unexpected, but thank you I appreciate that.

[Bienenhalde]

Again, in Hebrew it's better translated as "Thou Shalt Not Kill without Just Cause".

So, then, killing in an unjust war is wrong, and there is good reason to object to conscription on those grounds.

The state should not be starting unjust wars in the first place. But in the case of a just war, some people are likely to refuse to fight out of selfish or evil motives.

[Novus America]

I have to ask, why couldn't someone renounce their citizenship and therefore lose the essential rights of citizenship yet still remain a resident?
Foreign nationals who are non-citizen residents do still have rights.

Because they want the essential rights of citizenship, but don't want to be conscripted? Not an unreasonable want in my opinion.

I find it unreasonable to want the benefits of citizenship without the obligations.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Because they want the essential rights of citizenship, but don't want to be conscripted? Not an unreasonable want in my opinion.

I find it unreasonable to want the benefits of citizenship without the obligations.

The only obligation should be taxes.

[Ulrich Schmid]

The only obligation should be taxes.

This.

[Torrocca]

1.And by that same metric, Salus Maior, your religion's false to the nonbelievers and certainly to secular states so your notions of things like conscription need not apply to those not of your faith.

2.So, funnily enough, the Quran (from the cursory readings I've just done, at least) seemingly pushes a similar idea, especially insofar that at least one Sura outright states that it's morally righteous to free an enslaved person.

So, I reiterate as a summary of your statements, "Biblical slavery good, Quranic slavery bad."

1. First of all, no shit Sherlock. And my metrics for things like conscription are secular, hell, I'm mostly echoing CM here.

Interesting how you willingly toss the moralities and codes of your religion right out the window when it comes to forcing people into servitude to fight and die for a state as slaves. Really makes me think.

2. Good for the Qur'an. I'm not arguing against the Qur'an I'm arguing against the Islamists in this bloody thread who are saying that slavery should be a continuing practice according to Shari'a. I am arguing that is wrong. Do you agree with me, yes or no?

Sure, but that's wholly irrelevant to my point and even moreso to the fact that you actually weren't arguing against Islamism and its veneration of Shari'a when you explicitly said:

I honestly don't care about any form of Islam. To me, it's all just false religion.

Hence my equation between Biblical and Quranic slavery.

And again, I haven't once said that Christians practicing slavery is a good or right thing.

It sure has read as if you're implying it.

[Salus Maior]

Is shooting at someone who's shooting at you just cause?

Not if you're the aggressor.

I think that's a hard thing to judge in the moment.

[Genivaria]

I find it unreasonable to want the benefits of citizenship without the obligations.

The only obligation should be taxes.

So their obligation is the same as non-citizens.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Not if you're the aggressor.

I think that's a hard thing to judge in the moment.

It seems fairly easy to me. We have international institutions that judge it pretty well and fairly. And it should be even easier when part of a religion that often pontificates on wars and expressly says that certain wars are immoral.

It also doesn't seem that hard to figure out either when you're part of a force that is invading another country.

[Genivaria]

I think that's a hard thing to judge in the moment.

It seems fairly easy to me. We have international institutions that judge it pretty well and fairly. And it should be even easier when part of a religion that often pontificates on wars and expressly says that certain wars are immoral.

It also doesn't seem that hard to figure out either when you're part of a force that is invading another country.

The question was:

Is shooting at someone who's shooting at you just cause?

Nations don't shoot at each other, soldiers in the moment do.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It seems fairly easy to me. We have international institutions that judge it pretty well and fairly. And it should be even easier when part of a religion that often pontificates on wars and expressly says that certain wars are immoral.

It also doesn't seem that hard to figure out either when you're part of a force that is invading another country.

The question was:

Is shooting at someone who's shooting at you just cause?

Nations don't shoot at each other, soldiers in the moment do.

And if you're a soldier in the aggressor nation, you are the aggressor, and your moral duty is to lay down your arms and surrender, or refuse to go at all.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The only obligation should be taxes.

So their obligation is the same as non-citizens.

If an immigrant pays their taxes and follows the law, I see no reason not to let them become a citizen.

[Genivaria]

The question was:

Nations don't shoot at each other, soldiers in the moment do.

And if you're a soldier in the aggressor nation, you are the aggressor, and your moral duty is to lay down your arms and surrender, or refuse to go at all.

Not how you'll see it at the time.

[Salus Maior]

1.Interesting how you willingly toss the moralities and codes of your religion right out the window when it comes to forcing people into servitude to fight and die for a state as slaves. Really makes me think.

2.Sure, but that's wholly irrelevant to my point and even moreso to the fact that you actually weren't arguing against Islamism and its veneration of Shari'a when you explicitly said:

I honestly don't care about any form of Islam. To me, it's all just false religion.

Hence my equation between Biblical and Quranic slavery.

And again, I haven't once said that Christians practicing slavery is a good or right thing.

3.It sure has read as if you're implying it.

1. When it comes to fighting a greater evil I think conscription is a lesser evil. That is my point when it comes to conscription.

2. I think your point is misplaced. As I said before, I said that because the guy was trying to convince me to support Islamic orthodoxy (AKA Islamism) because I support Catholic orthodoxy. And the point of my statement is that, because I'm an orthodox Catholic I wouldn't care if Islam was orthodox or not because I don't believe it's true regardless. Does that make sense to you?

3. Then that's a problem with your reading comprehension. I wasn't stating that Christian slavery was better, I'm saying that slavery does not necessarily have a place in orthodox Christian practice at all. And in fact it can be argued that Christians owning slaves period is wrong from a purely orthodox perspective. I'm rejecting slavery and saying it's entirely unnecessary for a Christian to practice it and in fact Christians should not practice it.

Again, Torrocca, I don't think we're on opposing sides here, at least with the religious argument.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And if you're a soldier in the aggressor nation, you are the aggressor, and your moral duty is to lay down your arms and surrender, or refuse to go at all.

Not how you'll see it at the time.

To borrow from someone I don't really like: "facts don't care about your feelings."

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

Like yours?

You realize I'm speaking against Sharia slavery, right?

It is a shame Christians didn't regulate slavery as well.

[Genivaria]

Not how you'll see it at the time.

To borrow from someone I don't really like: "facts don't care about your feelings."

Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not I view myself as either the 'aggressor' or 'unjust' and if I don't recognize or believe these things than why on Earth would I lay down my arms?

[Torrocca]

1.Interesting how you willingly toss the moralities and codes of your religion right out the window when it comes to forcing people into servitude to fight and die for a state as slaves. Really makes me think.

2.Sure, but that's wholly irrelevant to my point and even moreso to the fact that you actually weren't arguing against Islamism and its veneration of Shari'a when you explicitly said:



Hence my equation between Biblical and Quranic slavery.



3.It sure has read as if you're implying it.

1. When it comes to fighting a greater evil I think conscription is a lesser evil. That is my point when it comes to conscription.

And what makes you the arbitrator of what is or isn't a greater evil (particularly when you've outright stated you're only selectively adhering to your faith here so that you can justify forcing people to fight and die)?

2. I think your point is misplaced. As I said before, I said that because the guy was trying to convince me to support Islamic orthodoxy (AKA Islamism) because I support Catholic orthodoxy. And the point of my statement is that, because I'm an orthodox Catholic I wouldn't care if Islam was orthodox or not because I don't believe it's true regardless. Does that make sense to you?

Sure does, still happens to be quite a bit irrelevant to my point there.

3. Then that's a problem with your reading comprehension. I wasn't stating that Christian slavery was better, I'm saying that slavery does not necessarily have a place in orthodox Christian practice at all. And in fact it can be argued that Christians owning slaves period is wrong from a purely orthodox perspective. I'm rejecting slavery and saying it's entirely unnecessary for a Christian to practice it and in fact Christians should not practice it.

Alrighty then, fair enough.

[Salus Maior]

It also doesn't seem that hard to figure out either when you're part of a force that is invading another country.

Invading another country is not necessarily unjust.

We technically invaded Europe on D-Day. And Germany not long after that.

[United Muscovite Nations]

To borrow from someone I don't really like: "facts don't care about your feelings."

Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not I view myself as either the 'aggressor' or 'unjust' and if I don't recognize or believe these things than why on Earth would I lay down my arms?

Whether you view yourself as the aggressor is irrelevant to whether you are the aggressor.

[Novus America]

I find it unreasonable to want the benefits of citizenship without the obligations.

The only obligation should be taxes.

Why? Society needs more than just money to operate.