Hayne~NFL~RU~Tits~Eels~Dad~Jailed~Mistrial~Jailed~Retrial~Jailed~Appeal~Quashed-Sued~Fat Coach

[the phantom menace]

One poor bloke was hanged the day after he ‘stole’ a hand full of beans! An entire Aboriginal family was summarily executed because their father stole an apple.
Justice was served in the name of god.

Yep, those religious frameworks shaped Australia real good...

 

[Mojo]

Yep, I'm well aware of the early history of Australia, and despite the often flawed and brutal behaviour of early colonists, the foundations and principles of our legal and social systems were still influenced by the religious values of the time, whether you like it or not.

Ignoring the fact that these frameworks were the basis of the society we have today seems a bit disingenuous to me.

It’s a strawman argument.
Perhaps we should get right back to our religious roots and revert to stoning adulterers to death?

 

[Mojo]

This discussion is seriously hilarious.

 

[emjaycee]

It can seem what you want it to seem I guess... if you want to see disingenuousity wherever you look, that's down to you.

But I wasn't ignoring those frameworks or their history. I was posing the question of whether someone can be "a good man as best as they know how" equally well outside of those frameworks as they might from within those frameworks. I believe someone can.

Interesting perspective. However what do you think forms the judgement of whether someone is a "good man" if not for some morally or ethically driven framework?

 

[Gary Gutful]

It can seem what you want it to seem I guess... if you want to see disingenuousity wherever you look, that's down to you.

But I wasn't ignoring those frameworks or their history. I was posing the question of whether someone can be "a good man as best as they know how" equally well outside of those frameworks as they might from within those frameworks. I believe someone can.

Disingenuousity isn’t a word, but should be

By Ruben Schade in Sydney, Australia. 🌻

rubenerd.com

 

[Mojo]

Interesting perspective. However what do you think forms the judgement of whether someone is a "good man" if not for some morally or ethically driven framework?

Morals and ethics do and should inform justice.

Morals and ethics can and do, of course, inform religious beliefs and vice a versa.

But, religious doctrine, should have no part in justice - precisely because it subscribes also to a higher, mystical, authority.

As soon as ‘god’ sits in the judges seat something other than justice is enacted and imposed - including judging non-believers of course.

 

[ImTheMan]

So we agree... I think? Deciding to be as good as you can doesn't require a religious framework?

The framework is helpful to some, but if you look outside it which I suggest you already do, you will see all of humanity knows on an intrinsic level what "god" is. You can argue who it is, but the manmade frameworks aren't dogmatically necessary, no. They are just more helpful and communal than wandering around in the dark blindly hoping for the best. There's no routine checklist that makes someone higher and mightier

 

[the phantom menace]

Interesting perspective. However what do you think forms the judgement of whether someone is a "good man" if not for some morally or ethically driven framework?

As already replied to Pou's similar question earlier in the thread.

If the question (as originally posed by I'mTheMan) is "Can you not just choose to be a good man as best as you know how" then I would say the judgement is (for better or worse) an internal individual one, based on an individual's chosen values.

That is to say, that morals and ethics are essentially an individual matter - whether someone chooses to align theirs with any given religious framework (of which there are various different ones within Christianity alone), a certain social framework, a certain political framework, or an eclectic mix drawn from various sources - to decide what how they define what is moral, ethical or "good" to them to pursue.

This perspective can account for or accommodate individual differences, as well as differences in an individual over time as they are changed by experiences.

 

[T-Boon]

Except we are all judged by unnatural paradigms imposed by others. Look at Hayne. Look at the victims of the Russian and Chinese revolutions.

Parra-dig-em

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So we agree... I think? Deciding to be as good as you can doesn't require a religious framework?

It absolutely does, even if we’re not aware of it.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That’s why we have a justice system separate from religions.

I beg to differ. Calling our transcendent values secular doesn’t stop them being religious.

Judges and juries rather than religious inquisitions. It’s a question of how rational and reasonable the system of judgment is. Religion has no place in justice.

The system is only as “rational and reasonable” as we agree it is. Is the presumption of innocence rational or is it reasonable to believe victims and presume guilt? You’ll find our beliefs on this come down to our faith in aggressors and accusers, respectively.

 

[the phantom menace]

It absolutely does, even if we’re not aware of it.

Ok, sure thing.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

It’s a strawman argument.
Perhaps we should get right back to our religious roots and revert to stoning adulterers to death?

Plenty of secular societies have capital punishment for crimes you disagree with. Atheists aren’t immune from human nature.

 

[Gronk]

Well he hasn’t been found guilty.

Neither was Dazza.

Notorious St Kilda, Beaumaris paedophile dies before sentencing for further abuse

Darrell Ray, who sexually abused boys in government schools and at AFL club St Kilda in the 1960s and 70s, was awaiting criminal prosecution on another string of charges.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Mojo]

I beg to differ. Calling our transcendent values secular doesn’t stop them being religious.

The system is only as “rational and reasonable” as we agree it is. Is the presumption of innocence rational or is it reasonable to believe victims and presume guilt? You’ll find our beliefs on this come down to our faith in aggressors and accusers, respectively.

The circularity of your reasoning is beautiful to behold.

Systems of justice (in advanced democracies at least) are, by definition and very deliberately, secular. You miss the fundamental point that you‘re not entitled to simply call your transcendent values our transcendent values and then use them as the basis of our legal system.

The very point of the presumption of innocence is that it is the only rational and reasonable starting point in assessing guilt. The finding of guilt may vey well agree with your religious beliefs but it doesn’t follow that your ‘transcendent values’ are the appropriate standards for all citizens to be judged against.

 

[Mojo]

Ok, sure thing.

You’ve been told! OK?

 

[Mojo]

Plenty of secular societies have capital punishment for crimes you disagree with. Atheists aren’t immune from human nature.

What a weird diversion. How do you know what ‘crimes I disagree with’? And, what’s it got to do with the discussion?

This is hilarious. I think you seem to believe that atheists are more likely to be criminals - or criminals are more likely to be atheists - or, no doubt, religious individuals are more likely to abide by the law. You need to be careful on this one because there’s quite a lot of historical references.

Anyway, do you actually realise that you’ve completely agreed with me on this point?

(I said I wouldn’t engage but I got sucked into the vortex. I’m going to have to resist this debate in future otherwise I’ll go mad.)

 

[the phantom menace]

Atheists aren’t immune from human nature.

 

[Gronk]

"Implausible that so many people just made things up for over the the decades for reasons." - There are people that hate priests and religion whether rightly or wrongly as a scapegoat for a problem, nothing to do with a pub test. There are mentally Ill people in society and people with bad or good memories decades later that have no idea what they are talking about. That's why the U.S has a statute of limitations in regards to some matters. There was smoke and fire in regards to Trump and his Hollywood Access tape, but his comments very open to interpretation even when they are right in front of you (e.g famous people have themselves thrown at) where as you probably thought he was going around grabbing people.

Coincidence and misinterpretation of social cues ?

 

[Snoochies]

Who defines what is good? What is good?