Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×

Comment Re:The best way to beat Trump... (Score 1) 185

Interesting, anonymous coward time to get a response.

The problem with that is, once you decide to discriminate against one group in the name of freedom, it becomes far easier to discriminate against *any* group in the name of freedom. Thus, Margaret Sanger and the Democrats with the DHS TOP program, are still trimming the weeds in the African American Community, this time by paying teenagers to get permanently sterilized so that they don't have to look at all those black people.

Comment Re:The best way to beat Trump... (Score 1) 185

We might yet take it back to my analogy blog, though you might look at my latest post and comment on Archbishop Sample's take on the subject.

As for our host here in this JE, well, Democrats have yet to come up with a good reason for discriminating against the unborn; and especially for their apparent discrimination against unborn with dark skin.

Comment Re:The best way to beat Trump... (Score 1) 185

Sounds like a good idea, I came up with the same solution this morning. Your message queue shows userid, just delete his posts. I'm out of friend slots, but he seems to be there from a long time back. I think he's just a typical Democrat fanboi, just like pudge is a typical Republican fanboi.

On reason, it really came down to Hinduism, Buddhism, Atheism, and Catholicism for me, as these are the most well reasoned and thought out faiths, and then choosing based on how they handle suffering. (Judaism is a close 2nd, but after WWII, they became so ethnically insular, with good reason).

I had a priest use the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man to describe the difference.

The rich man, wearing his purple underwear (a completely valid translation of the parable, this guy was wealthy) stepped over Lazarus the Beggar on his doorstep every morning and never stopped to help. When they eventually went to the next life, the rich man was in hell, and poor Lazarus was in heaven. Very simplistic moral lesson.

Now let's see how the four most reasonable forms of ethical thought say the rich man should have acted.

Hinduism says that our lives are ruled by Dharma and Karma- and that the rich man acted correctly because Lazarus needed to work out his Karma.

Buddhism claims that this world is an illusion, and suffering comes from not knowing it is an illusion. Buddhism would have the rich man help Lazarus to see his situation is just an illusion too, and there is no spoon.

Atheism sees suffering as the most important problem mankind faces, but that there is no afterlife, and would have the rich man say to Lazarus "I cannot help you without impoverishing myself, but I can end your suffering- I have the shot of poison right here to end your life, and thus end your suffering." Since there is no next life, this is a reasonably ethical way to handle the problem, reduce poverty by reducing the population of the poor.

Catholicism sees suffering as a challenge to those who are not suffering. It is Catholicism alone that invented the concept of the Hospital, born out of the monastic tradition of hospitality. It is Catholicism that invented almsgiving, and made it a duty, not an option. It is Catholicism alone that would require the rich man to invite Lazarus to dine at his own table, that would insist on opening homeless shelters. And it is Catholicism alone that says when you practice the corporal works of mercy that you save not only your own soul, but also the soul of the person you are helping.

Slashdot Top Deals

The earth is like a tiny grain of sand, only much, much heavier.