Total posts: 2,481
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
That's an excuse for your God
God doesn’t need an excuse, He’s God, if anyone’s making excuses it’s you in regards to people and personal responsibility.
why should humans that aren't even educated have to factor that in
Because it’s common sense, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you shouldn’t have kids if you can’t take proper care of them, it’s their fault not God, saying otherwise is an excuse for their irresponsible lifestyle choices.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Unless of course you are suggesting that god loves perfectly and that within that perfect loving - suffering and pain and evil are perfectly acceptable?
What do you mean by acceptable in this context?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I'm questioning that claim's validity.
Why? Who's claiming that? Lastly do you think it's moral to keep consent in mind when making decisions affiliated with it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Then why do kids still die? Because obviously the parents aren't good enough - cause sometimes parents can't do anything - like when their starving - tell me - how exactly does allowing millions to starve do anything to "keep their freewill" it's quite literally not their fault.
Because with life comes death, it's not limited to kids. Parents could've done something, they had the freewill to not be parents to children they can't support.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You're not understanding. I notice that many people say that this or that is immoral or not because this person did or did not consent. I'm simply asking why we should accept consent as a first principle of morality.
No you’re not understanding, just because consent is important in regards to situations where it’s applicable doesn’t mean it’s the first principle of morality, the two premises don’t logically follow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Like pagans and polytheists or do you man like Jews and Muslims?
Like all of the above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
do your parents allow their children to run into the middle of the street to "feel the freedom of their choices"?
No, because an all-loving God provided us parents to watch over us.
Please quit the theodicy.
No
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Who are you referring to when you say _ "those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible" ?
The people that applies to.
Tell me, how is it "free will " if it comes with a death sentence?
What do you mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Did it ever occur to you that an
all-loving God can also want the beings He loves to have the freedom to make their own choices?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think it does. Who said god has to " prevent evil things happening to prove he is all loving". Christians on the other hand will have us believe that " our father loves us" but he does have a funny way of showing that. Killing 10 children for an bet is not showing love.
So what do you say to those who believe in a God not depicted in The Bible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
An all loving god would not let evil occur if he was all powerful.
You’re begging the question, how do you know this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
That's the point
...The point is consent isn’t the first principle of morality? Then why ask?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Why does God have to prevent every evil thing from ever happening to prove He is all loving?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Don’t just talk in code explain yourself, what rule am I trying to make?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Why should we accept consent as a first principle of morality?
Trying to wrap my head around the intent of this forum, are you asking if consent is the first principle of morality or are you telling?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Separation of church and state is the law.
You don’t have to agree with the law.
Being Christian doesn’t mean I support mandatory biblical theocracy for people that don’t believe in God.
That’s one thing, satanic temples are another.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
But I've clarified to you why imprisonment is just but the DP isn't.
What’s just and unjust is a discussion for sadolite, not me (I’ve told you this already).
And before you say that I didn't clarify that to him, remember that even if I didn't my sentence would only be an apparent contradiction.
I guess I can agree to that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
If I say a sentence that does not contradict my views, in this case, can the sentence still be hypocritical?
Contradictions is what makes things hypocritical so no it was never hypocritical to begin with.
That is to ask: What did that sentence contradict, given that it was the first sentence I said in that argument (I believe).
Because his end isn’t the only one where wrongdoing is made, it’s done on yours too yet you criticized him and only him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Why?
Take a guess (I’ll give you a hint you’ve asked and I’ve answered this question many times before).
So now the problem is that I made it personal?
That’s not all you did you pretty much asked him the same question twice after he already answered it which wasn’t necessary, that’s why I did it back to you to prove a point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
So, that sentence is hypocritical too?
Maybe a little but I probably wouldn’t have come at you as hard as I did because you were just testing the waters to see where his head was at, but when you got your answer you were so persistent in making him see things your way that you made it personal by practically asking the same question (another reason why I took issue with you) and your not too distant from something similar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
So does this sentence solve your problem or does it not?
It doesn’t because it’s the same thing as the hypocritical question, only difference is the former one you didn’t make personal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
If not we can talk about my line of questioning.
That’s what we’ve already been doing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Okay, so maybe your overall position surrounding the issue isn’t hypocritical but your line of questioning was, satisfied? Still takes us back to square one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Your editing didn’t change my answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Your answer isn't how this stuff really works.
Considering this is all hypothetical, it works whichever way we choose it to for the sake of this discussion.
When people go to prison, they can get let out.
They also can stay there for the rest of there life, and in my answer they do.
The fact that the possibility of release is PRECLUDED is what's wrong with the death penalty.
If that’s how you feel then maybe you should’ve told that to sadolite, but that has no relevance in my criticism of you, so save the death penalty debate for him, saying it now is long overdue.
If you weren't so excited to win this conversation maybe you'd just accept my clarification and move on.
Maybe if you man up and accept that without the clarification and judging by the question alone it’s hypocritical then maybe I would.
And this is frankly obvious given that everyone knows that if you are killed by the death penalty it was theoretically possible that evidence could have come out exonerating you.
Do you have evidence of me doubting this?
If only everything worked that way. Even people using the most logical reasoning possible don't always get everything right. Sometimes what actually happened was very unlikely. And when evidence is complex, not everyone will make the correct decision.
You asked the question I gave the answer, all this doesn’t excuse the fact that people should get these things right even if they don’t.
In an equivalent comparison of the death penalty to life imprisonment, you would in both cases leave the possibility open that evidence would exonerate the person later on because that's how it really works, and that's because it is how it works in the question I asked.
Well since you know so much about the law how about you tell me how double jeopardy works?
You wouldn't just isolate the life imprisonment cases where people don't get exonerated for no reason.
Did you even ask?
It's like you saying:"Dude, do you really accept lunch ladies intentionally giving their students undercooked food?"And then I say:"Yeah, just like you accept lunch ladies sometimes accidentally giving their students undercooked food."
No, not at all, whatever context you provided in this example you’ve failed to provide when asking your question to sadolite and when I say context I’m not talking about the realities of the world I’m talking about your feelings in regards to the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Because the state prevented him from ever being able to live a normal life again by killing him.
...And? In my answer the state prevented you from ever being able to live a normal life again by giving you a life sentence, sure you can argue the possibility of being released but that possibility means nothing if it doesn’t happen and in my answer it doesn’t.
My question is based on the possibility that sadolite may be found innocent later if he isn't killed
Well maybe you should’ve said that, it’s easy to say that now AFTER I called you out for hypocrisy, since your adding all these unnecessary variables why not mention the murders that occur in prison? Although it’s not sanctioned by the state like the death penalty it still leaves the long term effect the penalty does, and what about the people that are on death row for long periods of time? Well in that case those possibilities that you’re so keen on are there.
it's usually better to be in prison than dead.
How do you know that? Have you ever been to prison or died?
If they get some things wrong, that's unfortunate, but what were they supposed to do?
Not get it wrong.
I asked him the question to make a point about reversibility.
Judging by that question alone there’s no proof of that.
I know in both the question and the answer it's irreversible, but that's because your answer is not as equivalent to my question
That makes no sense, how are you going to argue a similarity between your question and my answer and in the same breath say it’s not equivalent?
And no the "deterring crimes" in my question and your answer are clearly for different things, but we've already been over that so I won't go over it again.
No “deterring crimes” is simply just that and even if I entertained that idea what “different things” are you alluding to? I thought in your question sadolite got killed for murder and in my answer you spent life in prison for murder, so what’s the common denominator there? And if your not going to go over it again then what’s the point of saying this?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
he may or may not spend life in prison
That literally means nothing.
When someone is killed, you don't know if they would have spent life in prison or not
So? If someone spends the rest of there life in prison you don’t know what there life would be like if they had there freedom, what’s your point?
If you do end up spending life in prison, there's not necessarily any injustice done.
There is if you’re in there for a crime you didn’t commit.
happening for two different reasons
No, I said deterring crimes in my answer just like you did with yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
doesn't seem to affect the reversibility argument.
That’s because that has nothing to do with my criticism of you.
Like I said, I am not anti-sacrifice in all cases.
In all cases is what I meant when I initially said anti-sacrifice.
who cares
Well if that’s gonna be your attitude then no wonder why you can’t see the truth.
I'm going to tell you that there's nothing inherently hypocritical about two people accepting punishments for deterring crimes and one person criticizing the other person for the type of punishment and the magnitude of deterrence that they accept.
Why is the type of punishment relevant? Especially since in my answer I said you spend THE REST OF YOUR LIFE in prison, also magnitude of deterrence wasn’t brought up in either question or answer (although it is my belief that the deterrence would be much higher under the penalty) so don’t bring it up now.
Thanks for helping me get two gold medals on this site.
It’s what I do, you’re welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Reversibility is not a word in the sentence but it is a key part of the difference between my logic as employed in that sentence and sadolite's logic.
Do you want me to just copy and paste when I previously refuted this reversibility argument?
Go ahead.
Then why did I liken you to him in my answer? Because that’s where you’re similar, you’re so hellbent on talking about the differences when the differences had nothing to do with the answer itself.
But if my position and criticism of his are not hypocritical
But it is.
Will stop responding to things I've already talked about.
Considering everything I responded to we covered already I guess if you’re keeping your word on that you wouldn’t be responding at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I gave you that.
No, I literally have both the question and answer and nowhere in either one of those does it say anything about reversibility.
I don't care whether it was in your answer or not.
Then don’t lie about reversibility being in the answer because it wasn’t, and the answer is significant considering it exposes the hypocrisy you relentlessly demand.
Analyze the actual intent and logic of my sentence and contrast it with the intent and logic of your sentence and you will see that they're different.
Like I said intentions can’t be proven, so it’s a futile effort.
Why is it important to challenge this one sentence?
You mean the question? I’m sure you can take a guess (I’ve said it many times already).
They're different in ways that make it impossible to say that one sentence is hypocritical when compared to the other.
Do you want me to just copy and paste when I previously refuted this argument?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
so we have to use a process of inductive reasoning to figure out what it most likely was.
I don’t care what it most likely was, I only took issue with a specific line of questioning you had, you bringing up all this extra stuff is irrelevant.
Nonetheless, the BoP is on you to prove my statement to be hypocritical, since you're making the positive claim, no?
Which I did a bunch of times already (you even acknowledged my proof) so don’t act brand new now.
They were supposed to contextualize what I said and show that I was clearly talking about reversibility in my initial statement.
Even if that is true, in the answer I gave reversibility wasn’t an option just like with yours and the death penalty because in my answer you spent the REST OF YOUR LIFE in jail.
Address this.
I didn’t address it the first time for the exact reason you mentioned in that quote
which you seemingly are not challenging as hypocritical
And what I am challenging is the only thing of relevance in this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Get a room.
How about we get a thread instead (oh wait we did, this one).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Just sent you messages explaining why it isn't
No you didn’t, all you did was go on this long meaningless rant about your intentions (which can’t be proven by the way) and changed the subject to previous things that were said between you and sadolite (which had nothing to do with my criticism of you).
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
I want the amount of things people are legally forced to fund be minimal.
Minimal? Not ruled out completely? How do you determine what should and shouldn’t be forced to fund?
(even though I think they should be allowed to exist)
Lastly what kind of Christian says this? Unless you were trolling when you listed yourself as Christian on your profile.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
(even though I think it isn't)
Why? I literally told you a bunch of times why it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
What I'm criticizing him for is accepting the death penalty for crime deterrence rates.
Where in the question/answer did it say that?
The fact that the person is getting arrested for a crime they didn't commit is meant to point out the irreversibility of the death penalty.
Irreversibility had nothing to do with the question/answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Like I said though, my qualm with sadolite is not that he accepted punishment period.
But you didn’t say that, and if you did it came after the fact (when I called you out for hypocrisy).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
And that's irrelevant even if it's true.
It’s relevant in regards to hypocrisy because you both accepted punishment for crimes you didn’t commit, and don’t waste your time bothering to tell me the differences because that’s irrelevant in regards to why I called you a hypocrite.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
And that's irrelevant even if it's true. All that matters is that I criticized his position because of circumstances and actions that were importantly different from my position. That's enough to prove that I'm being consistent.
I said this? Are you sure?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I said nothing about deterrence rates or reversible in my answer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
And the death penalty is a punishment no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Would you really sacrifice your life to feed your dog?
Yeah just like you would sacrifice some of your time to make sure your dog doesn't die, lol hypocrite
If the one asking the question claimed to be anti sacrifice then yes that question is hypocritical. You criticized Sadolite for accepting punishment for a crime he didn’t commit when you did the same, that’s the literal example of hypocritical.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Why? What do you mean why? There’s no why in regards to these things it just is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Ok just because we both accept something happening to us for the sake of something else doesn't make me a hypocrite.
It does if you criticize him for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
That we accept something as a consequence for something else?
Sure, for arguments sake let’s go with that.
Created: