NATION

PASSWORD

Fish Shall Not Be Eaten

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Camelza
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12604
Founded: Mar 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Camelza » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:18 pm

Diopolis wrote:
Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.

We better get back to fish...
Last edited by Camelza on Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:18 pm

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:
Diopolis wrote:I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.

Oh this is going to go down great I can just tell right now.


And I was expecting the Republican Party to make an association between Planned Parenthood and the Nazis...
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Italios
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17468
Founded: Dec 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Italios » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:21 pm

Diopolis wrote:
Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.

Yeah, especially considering there is no abortion holocaust....
socialist ☭ pro-enosis ☦︎ dsaz member ♥ free literature
"individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in selfishness." -alexis de tocqueville

User avatar
Kainesia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1231
Founded: Mar 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kainesia » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:22 pm

Anyone who bans the consumption of a fine salmon fillet needs to be put to death.
A radical centrist. Atheist, English, enjoys roast babies with chips.

PRO: Science,capitalism,and all that stuff

ANTI:Religion, socialism and all that jazz

User avatar
Camelza
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12604
Founded: Mar 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Camelza » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:24 pm

Italios wrote:
Diopolis wrote:I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.

Yeah, especially considering there is no abortion holocaust....

This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:25 pm

Camelza wrote:
Italios wrote:Yeah, especially considering there is no abortion holocaust....

This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.


Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!

What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
Thalasus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 127
Founded: Aug 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thalasus » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:26 pm

If it was an individual family that held these beliefs, then I don't think they should be respected. If it's the belief of two very large religious traditions that, combined, have over 1.5 billion adherents across the world, it should be at the very least accommodated for.

This mess of a post is obviously based on the "pork or nothing" controversy that has occurred in certain regions of France lately and has been a contentious subject between (often Christian) ultra-conservatives in the government and followers of Islam and Judaism who have children in school, children who are too young to understand that pork is "haram" or unclean. My opinion is that their religions beliefs should be accommodated for. Is it really that hard for the state to provide alternative lunches for these children? At the very least, you can set out some PB&J for them on days where the school happens to be serving pork.

The argument shouldn't be "is it okay to eat fish (pork)", as most reasonable people would agree that, religion aside, there is nothing wrong with consuming pork. The question we are asking should be "is it right for the state to declare that a certain aspect of a large religion is invalid for no good reason, and to encourage young children to break that aspect of their faith without their parents' consent or the children's knowledge?" The answer to that question should definitely be no.
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Internationalist/Globalist AF. Watch out for climate change and robots.
"Nothing can stay the same forever: that which can not grow must die, that which can not die must grow."

User avatar
Italios
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 17468
Founded: Dec 19, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Italios » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:26 pm

Camelza wrote:
Italios wrote:Yeah, especially considering there is no abortion holocaust....

This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.

Image

You're right, there's already a thread for that.

Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.
socialist ☭ pro-enosis ☦︎ dsaz member ♥ free literature
"individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in selfishness." -alexis de tocqueville

User avatar
Diopolis
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 16828
Founded: May 15, 2012
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Diopolis » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:27 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.


Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!

What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?

Certainly that's ethical.
Of course, now you're talking about pretty much any sufficiently strict adherent of most religions.
Proudly anti-mask, moderately anti-vax. 9/11 and OKC bombing truther. Tobacco-cancer link and HIV skeptic.
Economic left -3.88, authoritarian 6.15
Thoughts
Abortion is not healthcare.

User avatar
Thalasus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 127
Founded: Aug 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thalasus » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:30 pm

Italios wrote:
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.

Image

You're right, there's already a thread for that.

Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.

To what degree can a child believe in anything, really? Children believe what their parents tell them, whether they are liberal atheists, conservative Christians, or Muslims. I don't think we should be treating a child like an adult, especially when it comes to religion.
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Internationalist/Globalist AF. Watch out for climate change and robots.
"Nothing can stay the same forever: that which can not grow must die, that which can not die must grow."

User avatar
Kainesia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1231
Founded: Mar 25, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Kainesia » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:30 pm

Diopolis wrote:
Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

I'm not sure atheism is itself to blame for the abortion holocaust.


Our dining habits have minimal effect on the human population it is true. Few atheists eat them at the foetal stage, some people just have no taste.
A radical centrist. Atheist, English, enjoys roast babies with chips.

PRO: Science,capitalism,and all that stuff

ANTI:Religion, socialism and all that jazz

User avatar
Camelza
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12604
Founded: Mar 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Camelza » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:33 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.


Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!

What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?

AQ'd
Italios wrote:Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.

That's your opinion of what is good and what is not, I strongly believe that parents should teach their chidlren whatever they wish, provided of course that they won't cross the lines. After all, their parents aren't the only sources of information children have and as they grow up the influence of the parents will grow weaker.

User avatar
Thalasus
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 127
Founded: Aug 10, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Thalasus » Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:35 pm

Camelza wrote:
Italios wrote:Parents shouldn't push religion on their children. If the child does not believe in the religion, they don't need to follow that diet. If they do, fine, they can do what they like. It's up to them in a scenario like this.

That's your opinion of what is good and what is not, I strongly believe that parents should teach their chidlren whatever they wish, provided of course that they won't cross the lines. After all, their parents aren't the only sources of information children have and as they grow up the influence of the parents will grow weaker.

You said it better than I did. Parents have a right to teach their children what they believe is morally right or morally wrong. Once the children are adults, they can do whatever they want.

EDIT: Fixed the quoting.
Last edited by Thalasus on Mon Oct 26, 2015 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Internationalist/Globalist AF. Watch out for climate change and robots.
"Nothing can stay the same forever: that which can not grow must die, that which can not die must grow."

User avatar
Palakistan
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1306
Founded: May 20, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Palakistan » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:00 pm

Italios wrote:
Palakistan wrote:Meh, not really. Atheism hasn't been around long enough to kill more people than religion has. Atheism has undoubtedly killed tens of millions, not including all the aborted children, which is another 1.5 billion.

How? Source, please?

By the way, properly executed abortions are not killing. If they're preformed after a specific age, they are. But when the "child" is a fetus, it's not. :)

Mao, Stalin, and many others killed many people. They are Athiests.

Um, ok. I shouldn't get off topic here. It is my personal belief that it is not only killing but murdering, but let's not go down that path. Let's just leave at that.
My stats are frozen at 10%
I annoy lots of people with my views. Sorry abou' that.

Your worst In Character enemy should be your best Out Of Character friend.
- to you who said that: genius!

User avatar
Gauthier
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52887
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Gauthier » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:01 pm

Palakistan wrote:
Italios wrote:How? Source, please?

By the way, properly executed abortions are not killing. If they're preformed after a specific age, they are. But when the "child" is a fetus, it's not. :)

Mao, Stalin, and many others killed many people. They are Athiests.

Um, ok. I shouldn't get off topic here. It is my personal belief that it is not only killing but murdering, but let's not go down that path. Let's just leave at that.


Remember, it doesn't count unless you can document Mao, Stalin and others proclaiming they killed many people specifically in the name of atheism like some cartoon high priest.
Crimes committed by Muslims will be a pan-Islamic plot and proof of Islam's inherent evil. On the other hand crimes committed by non-Muslims will merely be the acts of loners who do not represent their belief system at all.
The probability of one's participation in homosexual acts is directly proportional to one's public disdain and disgust for homosexuals.
If a political figure makes an accusation of wrongdoing without evidence, odds are probable that the accuser or an associate thereof has in fact committed the very same act, possibly to a worse degree.
Where is your God-Emperor now?

User avatar
The Hobbesian Metaphysician
Minister
 
Posts: 3311
Founded: Sep 09, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby The Hobbesian Metaphysician » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:04 pm

I daresay we are breaching dangerously close to being off topic.
I am just going to lay it out here, I am going to be very blunt.

User avatar
Camelza
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12604
Founded: Mar 04, 2012
Ex-Nation

Postby Camelza » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:07 pm

Gauthier wrote:
Palakistan wrote:Mao, Stalin, and many others killed many people. They are Athiests.

Um, ok. I shouldn't get off topic here. It is my personal belief that it is not only killing but murdering, but let's not go down that path. Let's just leave at that.


Remember, it doesn't count unless you can document Mao, Stalin and others proclaiming they killed many people specifically in the name of atheism like some cartoon high priest.

N/A vult!

User avatar
Jochistan
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9390
Founded: Nov 02, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Jochistan » Mon Oct 26, 2015 6:00 pm

The Hobbesian Metaphysician wrote:
Jochistan wrote:"Fish" is much more of a diverse group of meat than "pig" however.
But yes, if you believe it's unclean and have legitimate religious traditions to point to, I really don't give a shit. Neither should anyone else. That is how trivial choosing not to eat one type of meat is to society.

Fite me.

On horseback or with actual swords this time Genghis Khan?

I fought with swords last time, hmph.
Your friendly neighborhood Steppe Republic.
I was a wimp before Nationstates, now I'm a jerk and everybody loves me.

Pro: Moral Conservatism, Nationalism, Rationalism, Theocracy, Traditionalism, Golden Age of Islam, Corporal and Capital Punishment, Ethnic Mixing, Integration, Stranka Demokratske Akcije, Kosovo, Tibet, Ichkeria, el Sisi.
Anti: Salafism, Khomeinism, Racial Ultranationalism, Xenophobic Populism, Progressivism, Communism, Hedonism, Pacifism, Multiculturalism, Nihilism, Israel, Hamas, Serbia and friends, China.
Genghis did nothing wrong

User avatar
Gim
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30754
Founded: Jul 29, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Gim » Mon Oct 26, 2015 8:49 pm

How did we get from, "fish", to "Mao and Stalin"? :meh:
All You Need to Know about Gim
Male, 17, Protestant Christian

User avatar
Chinese Peoples
Minister
 
Posts: 2666
Founded: Dec 28, 2013
Ex-Nation

Postby Chinese Peoples » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:00 am

There's absolutely no morality involved in this scenario. Religious beliefs are not morals. There is no harm done to either the child by eating fish (unless the religion was just a cover for another reason, such as an allergy to fish) or to society; nor are any social (social customs are not religious customs) customs against eating fish; that alone means it is not immoral to eat the fish.

Moral, from Latin mos, "custom".
Last edited by Chinese Peoples on Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
IC Title: the Republic of China | MT | Factbooks | the only democratic China on NS
The duty of the state is to prevent danger, not to punish it after it has happened. Rescind the 2nd Amendment, today.

User avatar
The Alexanderians
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12581
Founded: Oct 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby The Alexanderians » Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:23 am

Hey it's not like it's pork
Last edited by The Alexanderians on Tue Oct 27, 2015 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Galloism wrote:Or we can go with feminism doesn't exist. We all imagined it. Collectively.
You can't fight the friction
Women belong in the kitchen
Men belong in the kitchen
Everyone belongs in the kitchen
Kitchen has food
I have brought dishonor to my gaming clan
Achesia wrote:Threads like this is why I need to stop coming to NSG....

Marethian Lupanar of Teladre wrote:A bright and cheerful mountain village of chapel-goers~

The Archregimancy wrote:
Hagia Sophia is best church.

Major-Tom wrote:Why am I full of apathy?

I'm just here to be the peanut gallery
уσυ нανєи'т gσт тнє fυℓℓ єffє¢т

User avatar
Daburuetchi
Minister
 
Posts: 2656
Founded: Sep 14, 2014
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Daburuetchi » Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:48 am

Fish are friends not food! But no seriously the kid has R-R-RADICAL FREEDOM so he/she can do whatever parents and their weak morality be darned
Last edited by Daburuetchi on Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alvecia
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19572
Founded: Aug 17, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Alvecia » Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:34 am

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Consider the following hypothetical situation:

A parent has a child. He tells the child that God has told Man that Man should not eat fish because fish is ''unclean.'' To support this proposition, the parent points to an ancient sacred text supposedly confirming this statement. If a person has eaten a fish, then a person has broken sacred commands and he ought to feel ashamed of himself, he tells the child.

One day the parent finds out that the child has eaten fish at the school cafeteria. He proceeds to call the child to him, lecture him, discipline him, and punish him for his crimes against God. In the process, he reminds the child of who he is and who they are, and that as followers of God, they have a moral duty not to eat fish.

Now the discussion question is this:

Did the parent behave ethically? Is it ethical to mandate a specific diet for your child that is motivated by religion? Is it within the parental prerogative? Is it ethical to remind your child of his religious beliefs and of the sacred diet through discipline and punishment when the child decides to try what is forbidden?

From where I'm standing: No.

No. The answer is No with respect to all of the above. It is wrong to impose arbitrary dietary restrictions on your child that are not medically motivated and to impose your religion on your child. He is too young to understand and too vulnerable to religious indoctrination and it is simply unethical to press with your authority in this manner. Furthermore, the beliefs are illogical and not scientifically supported.


To establish this is ethical you would first have to establish that reducing freedoms based on unsubstantiated claims is moral. Which you cannot do. Hence this is not ethical.
British
Atheist
IT Support
That there is no exception to the rule "There is an exception to every rule" is the exception that proves the rule.
---
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop asking you to catch his fish.
That's not happening
That shouldn't be happening
Why is that happening?
That's why it's happening?
How has this ever worked?

User avatar
Kilobugya
Senator
 
Posts: 4283
Founded: Apr 05, 2005
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Kilobugya » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:22 am

Parents definitely shouldn't push religion on their children nor punish them if they don't follow religious rules. Freedom of consciousness doesn't stop because someone is young and weak. A child needs to make his own worldview. He will of course be influenced by his parents' worldview, the one of his teachers, the one of the books he read and movies he watches, the one of his friends, ... but it never should come forcefully and under threat of punishment.
Secular humanist and trans-humanist, rationalist, democratic socialist, pacifist, dreaming very high to not perform too low.
Economic Left/Right: -9.50 - Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.69

User avatar
The Grim Reaper
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10524
Founded: Oct 08, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby The Grim Reaper » Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:28 am

Gauthier wrote:
Camelza wrote:This thread is about a hypothetical fish-hating religion and ethics of parental religious impact, please don't turn it into an abortion thread.


Let's have a compromise and make it a fish abortion thread!

What if a hypothetical religion bans the eating of caviar?


I don't know about caviar, but if a religion bans the eating of roe, it's a goddamn crime against humanity.
If I can't play bass, I don't want to be part of your revolution.
Melbourne, Australia

A & Ω

Is "not a blood diamond" a high enough bar for a wedding ring? Artificial gemstones are better-looking, more ethical, and made out of PURE SCIENCE™.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Cannot think of a name, Estanglia, Geneviev, Ifreann, Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio, Kortunal, LuvHungary, Names Are Too Hard, No State Here, Nobel Hobos 2, Post War America, Shrillland, Souseiseki, The Huskar Social Union, The New California Republic, Valrifell, West Leas Oros 2, Wink Wonk We Like Stonks

Advertisement

Remove ads