As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Pope Palpatine: "Well fuck my shit, I guess it's okay to use condoms sometimes. GOD!"

13

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Well, yeah

    Pretty much by definition
    Ummmmmm, no.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
    Hedonism is a school which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).
    Maximizing net pleasure requires fostering deeper friendships.

    Couscous on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Hedonism is not just doing something that feels good, it's seeking out and valuing that feeling over other things. Which has negative psychological consequences, even if you've learned how to mitigate outer consequences.
    What negative psychological consequences?

    As fun as it is to feel good, deeper connection to others is a more important aspect of human happiness. So hedonism that values feeling good over human connection is a path to loneliness and many psychological difficulties that can accompany it.

    You are assuming that hedonism is only concerned with shallow happiness.

    Well, yeah

    Pretty much by definition

    Might want to visit the 'Things I thought I knew about" thread after a quick Google search.

    Kamar on
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Preemptively dismissing it as 'old bullshit' doesn't really change the fact that it's true. I'd love to know what other motivation exists.

    You do good things for people you empathize with, because doing good things for them makes you feel good, and seeing them in pain hurts you.

    And you can do terrible shit for your own sake, or the sake of those you empathize with, to those you don't empathize with.

    How is this controversial?
    SEP wrote:
    A bigger problem for psychological egoism is that some behavior does not seem to be explained by self-regarding desires. Say a soldier throws himself on a grenade to prevent others from being killed. It does not seem that the soldier is pursuing his perceived self-interest. It is plausible that, if asked, the soldier would have said that he threw himself on the grenade because he wanted to save the lives of others or because it was his duty. He would deny as ridiculous the claim that he acted in his self-interest.

    The psychological egoist might reply that the soldier is lying or self-deceived. Perhaps he threw himself on the grenade because he could not bear to live with himself afterwards if he did not do so. He has a better life, in terms of welfare, by avoiding years of guilt. The main problem here is that while this is a possible account of some cases, there is no reason to think it covers all cases. Another problem is that guilt may presuppose that the soldier has a non-self-regarding desire for doing what he takes to be right.

    The psychological egoist might reply that some such account must be right. After all, the soldier did what he most wanted to do, and so must have been pursuing his perceived self-interest. In one sense, this is true. If self-interest is identified with the satisfaction of all of one's preferences, then all intentional action is self-interested (at least if intentional actions are always explained by citing preferences, as most believe). Psychological egoism turns out to be trivially true. This would not content defenders of psychological egoism, however. They intend an empirical theory that, like other such theories, it is at least possible to refute by observation.

    MrMister on
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Hedonism is not just doing something that feels good, it's seeking out and valuing that feeling over other things. Which has negative psychological consequences, even if you've learned how to mitigate outer consequences.
    What negative psychological consequences?

    As fun as it is to feel good, deeper connection to others is a more important aspect of human happiness. So hedonism that values feeling good over human connection is a path to loneliness and many psychological difficulties that can accompany it.

    You are assuming that hedonism is only concerned with shallow happiness.

    Well, yeah

    Pretty much by definition

    Might want to visit the 'Things I thought I knew about" thread after a quick Google search.
    Look up the old tired altruism claim while you're at it. It was debunked a while ago.

    Captain Carrot on
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    However, when volunteers generously placed the interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.

    There are also other experiments covered in the entry that suggest that it (Altruism) is at least in part a difference in perception of the world.

    I'm looking and I'm just not finding anything 'debunking' the idea. Link, or at least give me a general idea of where to look. I'm always glad to correct my positions.

    edit: and we should probably take this to another thread if we're going to keep going, it's getting rather far afield

    Kamar on
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Kamar wrote: »
    However, when volunteers generously placed the interests of others before their own by making charitable donations, another brain circuit was selectively activated: the subgenual cortex/septal region. These structures are intimately related to social attachment and bonding in other species. Altruism, the experiment suggested, was not a superior moral faculty that suppresses basic selfish urges but rather was basic to the brain, hard-wired and pleasurable.

    There are also other experiments covered in the entry that suggest that it (Altruism) is at least in part a difference in perception of the world.

    I'm looking and I'm just not finding anything 'debunking' the idea. Link, or at least give me a general idea of where to look. I'm always glad to correct my positions.

    The interpretation of experiments in this area is always fraught, especially the interpretation of brain-data.

    In any case, there is a distinction between doing something which is pleasurable and doing something in order to pleasure oneself. Altruistic acts can engender pleasure, but that does not entail that they are done for the sake of securing pleasure. Rather, they can be done for the sake of altruistic concern.

    For contrasting experimental data, see:
    SEP wrote:
    First, Daniel Batson and colleagues found that increased empathy leads to increased helping behaviour. One hypothesis is altrustic: empathy causes a non-instrumental desire to help. There are many competing egoistic hypotheses. Empathy might cause an unpleasant experience that subjects believe they can stop by helping; or subjects might think failing to help in cases of high empathy is more likely to lead to punishment by others, or that helping here is more likely to be rewarded by others; or subjects might think this about self-administered punishment or reward. In an ingenious series of experiments, Batson compared the egoistic hypotheses, one by one, against the altruistic hypothesis. He found that the altruistic hypothesis always made superior predictions. Against the unpleasant experience hypothesis, Batson found that giving high-empathy subjects easy ways of stopping the experience other than by helping did not reduce helping. Against the punishment by others hypothesis, Batson found that letting high-empathy subjects believe that their behaviour would be secret did not reduce helping. Against the self-administered reward hypothesis, Batson found that the mood of high-empathy subjects depended on whether they believed that help was needed, whether or not they could do the helping, rather than on whether they helped (and so could self-reward). Against the self-administered punishment hypothesis, Batson found that making high-empathy subjects believe they would feel less guilt from not helping (by letting them believe that few others had volunteered to help) did not reduce helping.

    MrMister on
  • ImprovoloneImprovolone Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Fallingman wrote: »
    I sincerely hope that this will lead to an agressive push for religious charity groups in Africa to stop Abstinence-Only efforts in working with AIDS.

    So much good will and money being wasted.

    What would do more good is if the governments over there stopped pushing anti-retro viral propaganda.

    Improvolone on
    Voice actor for hire. My time is free if your project is!
  • KamarKamar Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    EDIT: Making a thread for this

    Double Edit: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=17397054

    Kamar on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Man, for real, any study that says

    "... and then [area of brain associated with thing] lit up, proving it was real!" or something to that effect, it's just someone BSing. I hate when people abuse fMRI.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to Critical Resistance and Black Lives Matter.
  • taoist drunktaoist drunk Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Among the people who actually make policy, no, not really, to the best of my knowledge.

    I think there's a very small contingent who's okay with Birth Control after marriage, but they're not exactly causing a ruckus

    By the '80s, 80% of American Catholic women were using birth control, and only 29% of American priests felt it was intrinsically immoral. (PBS)

    taoist drunk on
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Well, yeah

    Pretty much by definition
    Ummmmmm, no.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism
    Hedonism is a school which argues that pleasure is the only intrinsic good.[1] This is often used as a justification for evaluating actions in terms of how much pleasure and how little pain (i.e. suffering) they produce. In very simple terms, a hedonist strives to maximize this net pleasure (pleasure minus pain).
    Maximizing net pleasure requires fostering deeper friendships.

    You completely misconstrued that paragraph. The word pleasure is intentionally used to connote short term positive feelings. Keep reading.

    MentalExercise on
    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Among the people who actually make policy, no, not really, to the best of my knowledge.

    I think there's a very small contingent who's okay with Birth Control after marriage, but they're not exactly causing a ruckus

    By the '80s, 80% of American Catholic women were using birth control, and only 29% of American priests felt it was intrinsically immoral. (PBS)

    That doesn't contradict what I said in any way.

    Salvation122 on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    So how do other religions handle a flip flop?

    The Mormons allowed black church goers to become clergy in the 70s. What was the excuse the bigwigs gave to blacks in the 60s?

    John Paul II said evolution was possible in some way.

    Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe that the end of the world would happen before 1914. Then 1925. Then 1975. Then 1994. What's the reasoning when reality forces them to change their minds?

    emnmnme on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    So how do other religions handle a flip flop?

    The Mormons allowed black church goers to become clergy in the 70s. What was the excuse the bigwigs gave to blacks in the 60s?

    John Paul II said evolution was possible in some way.

    Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe that the end of the world would happen before 1914. Then 1925. Then 1975. Then 1994. What's the reasoning when reality forces them to change their minds?

    God's word is perfect, but human interpretation of it is not?

    Evander on
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    So how do other religions handle a flip flop?

    The Mormons allowed black church goers to become clergy in the 70s. What was the excuse the bigwigs gave to blacks in the 60s?

    John Paul II said evolution was possible in some way.

    Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe that the end of the world would happen before 1914. Then 1925. Then 1975. Then 1994. What's the reasoning when reality forces them to change their minds?

    God's word is perfect, but human interpretation of it is not?

    Interpretation is one idea. Visions from the Almighty changing a position is also a thing.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2010&version=NIV;

    emnmnme on
  • EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Honestly, I'm just guessing. Judaism is what I know, and it is all about interpretation and reinterpretation and adaptation (which is what has allowed Judaism to stick around for so many thousands of years). I've never understood most of Christianity.

    Evander on
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Honestly, I'm just guessing. Judaism is what I know, and it is all about interpretation and reinterpretation and adaptation (which is what has allowed Judaism to stick around for so many thousands of years). I've never understood most of Christianity.

    And reinterpretation and reinterpretation. and then some arguing and rather pointed fingers, and then we reinterpret some more.

    Honestly, Evander, I have no idea what the Jewish viewpoint on Birth Control is. Help?

    lonelyahava on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The problem with the "human interpretation is not perfect" thing is that if we come to that realization, then everybody who points a finger based on human interpretation of anything divine is potentially a giant goosewad.

    joshofalltrades on
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Evander wrote: »
    Honestly, I'm just guessing. Judaism is what I know, and it is all about interpretation and reinterpretation and adaptation (which is what has allowed Judaism to stick around for so many thousands of years). I've never understood most of Christianity.

    And reinterpretation and reinterpretation. and then some arguing and rather pointed fingers, and then we reinterpret some more.

    Honestly, Evander, I have no idea what the Jewish viewpoint on Birth Control is. Help?

    Isn't Jewish birth control guilt and shame?

    Or is that Catholicism?

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The problem with the "human interpretation is not perfect" thing is that if we come to that realization, then everybody who points a finger based on human interpretation of anything divine is potentially a giant goosewad.

    No you see because this time they got it right.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • lonelyahavalonelyahava Call me Ahava ~~She/Her~~ Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    To my understanding, Catholics aren't supposed to interpret anything, that's for the pope on down to do.

    and guilt and shame, catholic,jewish, about right.

    lonelyahava on
  • CervetusCervetus Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    emnmnme wrote: »
    So how do other religions handle a flip flop?

    The Mormons allowed black church goers to become clergy in the 70s. What was the excuse the bigwigs gave to blacks in the 60s?

    John Paul II said evolution was possible in some way.

    Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe that the end of the world would happen before 1914. Then 1925. Then 1975. Then 1994. What's the reasoning when reality forces them to change their minds?

    That's not how it happened and you just don't understand the religion, for any "it" and any "religion."

    Cervetus on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    The problem with the "human interpretation is not perfect" thing is that if we come to that realization, then everybody who points a finger based on human interpretation of anything divine is potentially a giant goosewad.

    No you see because this time they got it right.

    Yeah, pretty much.

    This is why I take issue with centralized decrees like the Catholic Church's condom policy. One ordinary person seeking the truth is likely to make mistakes, but isn't as likely to make those mistakes widespread as someone in a position of unchecked and unchallenged authority. Granted there is more of a "buffet religion" when you don't unify your religious followers, but Protestantism is already pretty fractured and I don't see everybody all of a sudden deciding to unify anytime soon. I think the slight increase in moral relativism is okay as long as we can all agree on the big things, like murder and theft etc., being unacceptable whether religious or not.

    joshofalltrades on
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    In the words of Earl Butz re: pope on condoms, "He don't play-a the game, he don't make-a the rules!"

    KalTorak on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Heh, I'm going to have to remember that.

    joshofalltrades on
  • RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Mormons still have a direct line to God. He came down to the clergy and told them that it was okay to have black clergy in the 70's, so they added that to the appendix of the book of mormon.

    IIRC, Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the world not ending on time is due to their clergy being really bad at math. But someday they'll totally get those calculations right, and the world will end and we'll all be very sorry we didn't read those copies of The Watchtower they kept giving us

    Ringo on
    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Jehova's Witnesses believe the world began to end in 1914, but God is just really slow at the end of the world thing.

    Couscous on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I wonder if Jehovah's Witnesses are reading the same Bible I am, where Jesus says, "No one will know the time" and the day of judgment will come "like a thief in the night"

    It seems sort of relevant

    Although I suppose if somebody devoted themselves to guessing that every instant would be the end of the world, the end would never come

    joshofalltrades on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I wonder if Jehovah's Witnesses are reading the same Bible I am, where Jesus says, "No one will know the time" and the day of judgment will come "like a thief in the night"
    Jesus also says it will come really soon. The Bible isn't very useful at that.

    Couscous on
  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades Class Traitor Smoke-filled roomRegistered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Right, well, when an instant is an infinite amount of time to the person making the statement, and vice versa, it can theoretically become a bit unreliable.

    joshofalltrades on
  • SniperGuySniperGuy SniperGuyGaming Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    To my understanding, Catholics aren't supposed to interpret anything, that's for the pope on down to do.

    and guilt and shame, catholic,jewish, about right.

    Actually a catholic priest once told my class that if we aren't questioning our faith, we're doing it wrong, as questioning one's faith is the best way to strengthen it.

    Which seems entirely true to me, but is a point most Catholics seem to miss entirely.

    JP2 was awesome, Pope Palpantine is awful, though at least this is kindof a step towards better things. He still has a lot of notches against him. Like cancelling that charity rock concert because rock is evil. Or saying Harry Potter is evil. Even though JP2 sponsored the rock concert (He did a sermon based on Dust in the Wind!) and liked Harry Potter.

    (I'm not Catholic, just raised Catholic in a catholic high school)

    SniperGuy on
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    I wonder if Jehovah's Witnesses are reading the same Bible I am, where Jesus says, "No one will know the time" and the day of judgment will come "like a thief in the night"

    It seems sort of relevant

    Although I suppose if somebody devoted themselves to guessing that every instant would be the end of the world, the end would never come

    It is even funnier when you realize that Charles Taze Russell, the founder of the group that eventually became the Jehovah's Witnesses, started out as a post-Millerite Adventist. Millerites were followers of William Miller, the man who (in)famously predicted the return of Jesus on Oct. 22nd, 1844, resulting in the culmination of the Second Great Awakening with the "Great Disappointment" -
    Jesus didn't show up.

    The Adventists were the people who still, in the wake of a colossal, public failure of idea of attaching firm dates to the rebirth of Christ, persisted in insisting that it was going to happen "real soon now". Charles Taze Russell founded an organization that kept putting dates to the event.

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Jehova's Witnesses believe the world began to end in 1914, but God is just really slow at the end of the world thing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taze_Russell

    The way it works is the world would see an invisible return of Jesus Christ, where Jesus would take the throne from Jehovah and rule the world starting in 1874. Satan the Devil was influencing the world prior to that year. Armageddon would occur in 1914, a date Russell decoded from one of Daniel's prophecies. The world didn't end in 1914 but Russell knew that year was significant so they changed 1914 to the year Jesus took the heavenly throne from Jehovah and XXXX is the year the world would end.

    emnmnme on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    So...how long until Catholic services in...Absolutely Everywhere Below The Equator, start dishing out lots and lots of condoms? Because that's what needs to happen.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    So...how long until Catholic services in...Absolutely Everywhere Below The Equator, start dishing out lots and lots of condoms? Because that's what needs to happen.

    Probably around the time Pope Joan II and her lesbian partner are married.

    Seriously, the odds of the Church being extirpated in developed countries through disinterest and returning to a medieval level of fucked-uppedness in the Global South is probably a more likely outcome than what you suggest. :)

    Edith_Bagot-Dix on


    Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
  • Seaborn111Seaborn111 Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    So...how long until Catholic services in...Absolutely Everywhere Below The Equator, start dishing out lots and lots of condoms? Because that's what needs to happen.

    Probably around the time Pope Joan II and her lesbian partner are married.

    oh wow, i didn't know they were engaged! the ceremony will be sooooo lavish.

    I hope they don't have it at the moon vatican though. So expensive for destination weddings.

    Seaborn111 on
    </bush>
    It's impossible for us to without a doubt prove the non-existence of God. We just have to take it on faith that he's imaginary..
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    Cantido wrote: »
    So...how long until Catholic services in...Absolutely Everywhere Below The Equator, start dishing out lots and lots of condoms? Because that's what needs to happen.

    Probably around the time Pope Joan II and her lesbian partner are married.

    Seriously, the odds of the Church being extirpated in developed countries through disinterest and returning to a medieval level of fucked-uppedness in the Global South is probably a more likely outcome than what you suggest. :)

    Then this Popo's statement never happened, and the raping of virgins to cure AIDS, and the poverty situation in such regions will continue.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    AngelHedgie on
    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • pots+panspots+pans Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    JP2 was awesome, Pope Palpantine is awful

    In what ways was JPII better? I'm asking out of ignorance here, I was under the impression that both of them had/have extremely conservative views (at least, far more conservative than the average western catholic)

    pots+pans on
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    edited November 2010
    pots+pans wrote: »
    SniperGuy wrote: »
    JP2 was awesome, Pope Palpantine is awful

    In what ways was JPII better? I'm asking out of ignorance here, I was under the impression that both of them had/have extremely conservative views (at least, far more conservative than the average western catholic)

    I would say among JPII's best points was encouraging the Solidarity movement in Poland and generally encouraging nonviolent resistance against the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe.

    RMS Oceanic on
Sign In or Register to comment.