Author Topic: Saudis react to Saudi atheist being sentenced to death for criticizing Islam  (Read 521 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2547
"Large skepticism leads to large understanding. Small skepticism leads to small understanding. No skepticism leads to no understanding." - Xi Zhi

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3216
  • mooh
Well yes, but you see, the real issue is that he shouldn't have been so offensive.
Mooohn!

Offline Andrew Clunn

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 15339
  • Aspiring Super Villain
Why can't we have enlightened laws like this that put people's feelings first?
(click to show/hide)

Online Ah.hell

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10633
Why can't we have enlightened laws like this that put people's feelings first?
If we did then folks in Berkeley wouldn't have to take things into their own hands.

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
And the U.S. supports the Saudi government. So much for our claim to respect human rights.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3216
  • mooh
And the U.S. supports the Saudi government. So much for our claim to respect human rights.

Realpolitik always makes me feel dirty.

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2547
And the U.S. supports the Saudi government. So much for our claim to respect human rights.

This goes both ways.

The USA doesn't "support" Iran, which also executes atheists.

The USA also "supports" Israel, which is probably the best country in the Middle East to be an atheist in.

The USA also "supports" (whatever that means) the Nordic countries, which are even better places to be atheists in.

I agree that the Saudi regime is an abomination that should ultimately be replaced by a secular, democratic government, but I very much doubt that this ruling is at all affected by Saudi Arabia's foreign relationships.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2017, 04:42:11 PM by Quetzalcoatl »
"Large skepticism leads to large understanding. Small skepticism leads to small understanding. No skepticism leads to no understanding." - Xi Zhi

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3216
  • mooh
I very much doubt that this ruling is at all affected by Saudi Arabia's foreign relationships.

I don't think that was the point that was being made though... I think the point was that the U.S. (and other western countries) should stop supporting regimes that are rife with human rights abuses. I wholeheartedly agree with that principle, although I recognize that it may sometimes have undesirable political consequences.
For instance, cutting ties with Saudi Arabia means giving up an important strategic ally in the middle east and may push them towards Russia or China, which may have all kinds of unpredictable and undesirable downstream effects. And it means giving up any hope of influencing them through friendly political, economic and diplomatic relations, so it may end up making the human rights situation even worse.

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5296
  • DEEZ NUTZ
And the U.S. supports the Saudi government. So much for our claim to respect human rights.

Realpolitik always makes me feel dirty.

It should. Strict idealism that doesn't consider the downstream outcomes feels clean, and shouldn't. Roads to hell and all that. Think of that minor revulsion like a reminder that we still live in a dirty world full of dirty people.The other option is of course that you ignore downstream effects and live in a world where everything will be perfect if you do the right thing, and being surprised when someone turns out to have been far worse.
HIISSSSSSSS

Online Boßel

  • Go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2386
I have a solution. Send your atheists to the US. We need more!

Offline Billzbub

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2669
  • I know you know I know
It should. Strict idealism that doesn't consider the downstream outcomes feels clean, and shouldn't. Roads to hell and all that. Think of that minor revulsion like a reminder that we still live in a dirty world full of dirty people.The other option is of course that you ignore downstream effects and live in a world where everything will be perfect if you do the right thing, and being surprised when someone turns out to have been far worse.

The book Justine by the Marquis de Sade is about that.  The main character clings to her virtue at the expense of all else, and it ruins her life.

Online daniel1948

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4536
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
It should. Strict idealism that doesn't consider the downstream outcomes feels clean, and shouldn't. Roads to hell and all that. Think of that minor revulsion like a reminder that we still live in a dirty world full of dirty people.The other option is of course that you ignore downstream effects and live in a world where everything will be perfect if you do the right thing, and being surprised when someone turns out to have been far worse.

The book Justine by the Marquis de Sade is about that.  The main character clings to her virtue at the expense of all else, and it ruins her life.

I'm not sure that a work of fiction by the Marquis de Sade is the best source for ethical guidance.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5296
  • DEEZ NUTZ
It should. Strict idealism that doesn't consider the downstream outcomes feels clean, and shouldn't. Roads to hell and all that. Think of that minor revulsion like a reminder that we still live in a dirty world full of dirty people.The other option is of course that you ignore downstream effects and live in a world where everything will be perfect if you do the right thing, and being surprised when someone turns out to have been far worse.

The book Justine by the Marquis de Sade is about that.  The main character clings to her virtue at the expense of all else, and it ruins her life.

I'm not sure that a work of fiction by the Marquis de Sade is the best source for ethical guidance.

Fiction can serve as a mirror to reality, though. We prize the idea of the morally just so much that it echoes throughout our fictions: the knight who lets their foe live knowing they will strike again, the arch-good that is Superman, and a thousand localized variations. If you're a strict moralist, fine I guess, but the world doesn't work that way. The results of the decision must be weighed in making it.
HIISSSSSSSS

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10012
Fiction can be a good way to explore difficult ethical issues and start conversation.
Allowing outcomes created from whole cloth by an author (no matter how insightful we deem them to be) is a recipe for folly or at the least for policies that are only right by coincidence.

That said, I do agree with the sentiment expressed.

Offline werecow

  • Cryptobovinologist
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3216
  • mooh
Yeah OK, fiction can be a good medium to explore certain moral and ethical questions, but the author's outlook on life is kind of important there, which seems to be a big part of the point daniel1948 was making.
Mooohn!