But forgive me for being argumentative, but that seems arbitrary, because that’s true of any punishment. Fines/confiscation can be seen as theft, and imprisonment not as punishment for a crime is pretty monstrous. Death is, obviously, a greater issue, but that doesn’t seem to be a firm foundation.

I really don’t get the moral objections to the death penalty. I get, and agree with,  the practical ones, but I’ve yet to see a reason that it’s immoral in theory (absent the reality that, in general, we’re too bad at it to do it).

Why is it immoral?

An eye for an eye would murder him multiple times. We jail people who kidnap or falsely imprison, and Rajat not a moral quandary. We take years for crimes. I’m opposed to the death penalty because we’re bad at it, but this case is not an example of that. I don’t see a philosophical opposition to the death penalty that…

But let’s be honest, they’re only level 4. Only trump is a 10

I am profoundly happy! Thank you, Lauren, for being a friend.

Problem is, by and large we reserve force/violence to the police. So even though they aren’t medical practitioners, they’re the only ones with the rights and abilities to really intervene in violence. Abilities being a term used loosely of course...

If you call 911 for a psychotic episode, you’re getting law enforcement. Neither medics nor the fire department have guns or handcuffs. Scene safety is a priority, not to mention liability issues.

No, it was about slavery, and the states rights to have slaves. But nice try! Maybe next time lie about something plausible?

I disagree. That Swift wrote satire did not undermine his points about the treatment of the poor. Satire is sarcasm to make a point. What else would using Satan to create a religion based on science be, and how is it different than FSM?

So...this article’s SUPER backwards.

I think I was just in responding to both you and Hollylujah the same—that user actually doesn’t think it’s satire (apparently), so I must have just...sucked. Anyhoo, yay for agreement!

It’s still satire, though, and purposefully so.

Right, but the point is that they aren’t “even more convinced”, they’re maximally convinced already. This just paints them into a corner where they have to be less destructive. Your original comment implied a certain counterproductive aspect, where their actions just made the fundies dig in deeper. They can’t dig in…

Certainly, it’s not “merely” satire in that it has a productive aspect that goes along with the general satirical point. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t satire at all, and honestly that’s what satire’s supposed to be for, so I’d argue that the “merely” is a skosh unfair.

Well, they’re already doing that, though. They already think it’s a moral crusade: They think they’re confronting baby murderers. So a “confirmation” of something they are already irrationally convinced of isn’t really a change to anything. What it does do, however, is make them have to face their hypocrisy in a way…

No, it most definitely is satire. They’re purposefully lampooning religion, using the same methods that the religious use in an reductio ad absurdum. They’re required to pretend they “really” are Satanists even though we know that they usually aren’t “really” Satanists. They’re atheists who are using the trappings of…

Oh, nothing! But in this case, for the satire to have its intended effect, they have to really stand by it. Like...Swift wasn’t trying to go to court to say he really truly wanted to eat babies, y’know?

Well, that’s what satire’s for, though. It’s not just making fun, or we’d call it that. It’s making fun for a purpose.

Y’know, I am an atheist. I believe that most of TST folks are, too. So I want to get all criticizey on them and say “Hey, don’t use satire to try to make your point, just use honest argument”. But y’know what? Their shit works. And it seems like it’s often the only thing that does, particularly with this sort of…