Random Task

That's what it sounded like to me.

Once again, i've only got a minute or two here but think of it like this:

A police officer's job is to uphold the law- now imagine one who steals money. in every other respect he's a fantastic cop, but he's also on the take.

A Catholic priests job is to explain the bible and the decrees of the catholic church and to pastor to his congregation, but this priest disregards the bible and the decrees (probably the wrong word) of the organisation he is representing.

Yes, good point. Except for one fact: the act of stealing is regarded by most to be immoral — the main reason we expect a police officer (or anyone) to lose their job for stealing is not because ‘it’s contrary to their job description,’ or whatever; it’s because the act of stealing in itself is immoral. This is where I believe your analogy falls down. Blessing homosexual marriages and allowing women to give brief sermons (or whatnot) are not immoral, in the eyes of most. Just because it goes 'against' the church doesn't matter, although I agree that it may technically be in their right to do such a thing, but that doesn't make it right.

So, a more accurate analogy, I think, would be as follows: There exists an organisation which, for some reason, requires its employees to steal from people. One of these employees decides to not steal, because he disagrees with it, and so he is fired...

nice analogy andy


also

Once again Tom decides that looking after other people is the wrong idea!

Seriously, glen, what the fuck?

Lol.

When I just previously read your reply in the 'video links' topic, I was gunna say "Why... why is this in here?" But now I get it. And it is funny.

Seriously Tom- you need to stick to the thread/ discussion topic. Otherwise nobody understands what is going on... As Andy just pointed out.

To Andy: I would question the use of Immoral in your analogy (would rather use illegal), the point is taken- but still the Roman Catholic church is wholly within its rights to hire/fire staff (not quite the correct terminology, but...) based on whether they adhere to it rules. Try this- same cop but instead of theft try racial intollerance/ sexism/ racial targetting/ other breaches of his conduct contract.

If the bloke doesn't want to be part of the organisation- why is it such an issue that they put him out of that organisation? If I disagree with the policies set out by my work, i'll complain first (as is my oh-so Australian right) and then probably resign.

Yeah, true. But I still think the analogies you're giving don't apply. Racial intollerance, sexism etc. are all morally reprehensible, and it would be on those grounds that the individual is 1) fired (technically it could be because of conflict of interests or whatever) and 2) seen by the public in a negative light.

Now, I'm not familiar with the background of this Priest—for all I know he could have been a crappy priest in many ways, but not just because what he did contradicted what his job description may have been. Because even if certain things that he did did contradict what he was supposed to do, that just reflects badly on the organisation and not on him, depending on what the acts were. We don't just say "well, it was against what he's meant to do, full stop." We look at the act in itself, and decide whether it was acceptable or not.

I think your analogy argument only works for those acts that are "trivial" or whatever, and aren't like this. Many, many times we hear in the news that someone has done something against their 'orders,' but we look at the act and decide whether we think it's right.

Andy, the guy didn't do what the church was paying him to do. I can see why they let him go.

I didn't really see the need for the analogy's, I don't think any of them really worked.

But that is just my point. I don't think you can justify it like that. I never said it wasn't legal; I said it wasn't moral.

I am going to go out on a limb here but I think that the Catholic hierarchy have a slightly different view of morals to you. You big fat atheist.

Yeah, it's got a lot of other problems too...

In an unrelated issue, check this out!

Wallpaper TV in the pipeline

Hell yes. It can't be far away.

Cracked.com had an article about this- but the head honcho was developing it for surgical uses (so doctors could see through their own hands, etc)- but this

Glenjamin wrote:Cracked.com had an article about this

Some of those were great. I loved these parts:

When talking about the brain implant thing: "This technology clearly isn't going to stay limited to the disabled. " And "How will a society already plagued by obesity and sedentary lifestyles adjust to the invention of the mind controlled pudding cannon? "

Or this one: "In 2005, Lee Spievack, a man working in a Cincinnati hobby store, sliced off the tip of his finger as he was showing a customer how you can lose a finger when dealing with a model plane's motor. This is either an ironic accident or the single most badass thing any retail associate has ever done to sell a customer."

Yes, the cracked.com is wicked funny- check out the 5 soldiers who make rambo look soft (or something like that)

Canadians make stem-cell breakthrough

Go, you good thing Canadians.

That rocks- no more relying on fetus'

Yeah, never mind all the lives that were probably lost or unnecessarily kept in suffering while we waited for this, admittedly incredible, scientific breakthrough. As long as we pander to a large voting group’s loud superstitions.

So you like the idea of slaughtering children because they're inconvenient- and then harvesting their corpses...

Hmmm, since you ask, no, I don't like those things. Interesting segue... I thought we were talking about fetuses?

What do you think a Fetus is then?

Yes, I guess it is almost like ‘how big is a pile of stones?’ But, a fetus is most certainly less sentient than a chimp or dolphin, probably less than a dog, and probably less than a cow, yet we don’t treat those things with a great deal of respect.

Also, I should have picked up on this before, but most stem cells (I believe) don’t come from fetuses, but instead come from embryos, which are even further down the spectrum.

Also, most abortions aren’t because of an ‘inconvenience.’ But that is a debate for the abortion topic, which I’m happy to open up again.

Maybe we re-open said debate

Deal!

https://nocrevushere.forumotion.com/gentlemen-s-club-f7/controversy-now-t150.htm#4827

Oh-why can't we start a NEW thread?