Comments on: blind

By: zara

zara — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:49:00 +0000

I cannot believe this is the first time i’ve seen this comic. guess i can resign the rest of my day to reading the archives.

can someone explain the dildo that appears on the counter when they’re at the bar? is it a tap handle?

By: Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:39:26 +0000

lordrandom: don’t worry about your “grammar”– I did get enough of it right. You write a helluva lot more clearly than Jean Paul Sartre.

As Alway-Broke-Dick says, “Just keep it simple and it will be clear.”

By: lordrandom

lordrandom — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 23:57:05 +0000

Oh I think I know what has happened. Correct me if I’m wrong but the barmaid said laws should come from all views while I thought she meant religous belief should not be considered when making laws. Basically I made assumptions on a misinterpreted argument. My apologies.

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 19:07:48 +0000

I can’t say what Poor Richard was referring to, but speaking for myself, ‘The Barmaid said she disagreed with legalising on the basis of religion‘ seemed incongrous. I took it as a reference to the Euthanasia question a month or two ago, but re-reading it now I’m guessing you meant ‘legislating’. I think PR answered as much of your original question as he thought he understood, whilst stating that that wasn’t all of it. Either way, you seem to answer your question yourself in your latest post: ‘different religions… can result in different viewpoints on any issue…’. Obviously, unless you have a mono-religious state, you will have different religiously-originated viewpoints or positions on particular issues – or even issues themselves which are only issues in the eyes of a particular religious sect. For exactly that reason in any state other than a religious totalitarian one, law-making must be separate from religious edicts. It cannot primarily be based on any one religion’s view (even if any religion could agree amongst itself what it’s view was, eg most catholics – fortunately – ignore Ratzinger’s position on birth-control).

By: Matt Oxley

Matt Oxley — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 18:50:14 +0000

enjoyed again Author, keep it up.

By: lordrandom

lordrandom — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:10:03 +0000

Well he answered my question then two lines later he asked what my question meant, surely if you can answer a question you understand its meaning?

What I meant by my question is that different religions or lines of thoughts regarding religion can result in different viewpoints on any certain issue being raised. My question was how can you remove religion entirely from law when it is about view points as well as specific laws and customs?

Interesting argument Daoloth

By: Daoloth

Daoloth — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:29:39 +0000

lordrandom- My twopenneth would be to say that laws replace religion insofar as modern ones recognise the right to self-ownership. There are obvious grey areas of mental competance, age etc in deciding your own fate, but in general modern (ie post-enlightenment) law recognises that you own yourself and law regulates conduct between autonomous adults. This has implications, for example about slavery, forcing women to have children against their will, euthanasia etc. Religious law, and again their may be grey areas that I have no knowledge of such as Budhism, but certainly Judeo-Christian-Muslim (the differences are cosmetic to atheists) law does not recognise self-ownership. You are God’s property, through the august (self-serving usually) offices of His ministers. You cannot voluntarily withdraw labour. If female you are a baby machine. You cant even legally end it all when you choose-although others might impell you to do so! You had to pay for your own torture to extract a confession from yourself as a witch (I am not making this up).
Post enlightenment thinkers reject this picture and tend to emphasise liberalism for consenting competent adults within rational limits- “Your freedom to wave your arms ends where my nose begins”. That’s where I, and I suspect most other enlightenment-types would draw the line- self-ownership. Comments welcome!

By: Toast in the machine

Toast in the machine — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:21:29 +0000

Why do you ‘see someone’s religion as a way to encompass all their beliefs under one label’? Do you think that every member of any particular religion has identical beliefs? Even if that were the case, as we live in a pluralistic society, not a theocratic state (unless there’s anyone from any muslim dictatorships or the vatican reading) why would any lines need to be drawn specifically in accordance with any religious beliefs?

And in what way does asking exactly what your original comment mean ‘not help [Poor Richard's] argument’? Which parts of what he said do you think are not correct? And how do those parts – if there are any – support your position?

By: lordrandom

lordrandom — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 11:44:13 +0000

I know I have grammar issues but it doesn’t help your argument when you asked what I meant soon after giving an answer to my question.

By: Poor Richard

Poor Richard — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:57:06 +0000

Lord, random indeed. I cannot think of any decent law that represents “belief.” Law is supposed to represent and support the contracts we make with one another in order to get safely through our communal lives. There are, of course, laws based on beliefs, most of them dangerous or at least silly (i.e., not “decent”). One of my favorite categories is blue laws that prohibit fishing or buying beer on Sundays. Yes, fishing. And just when out economy needs every little boost it can get . . .

And don’t kid yourselves out there: capital punishment IS rooted in religion.

By the way, lordrandom, your prose is sort of random. What the hell did you just say, anyway?