Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.
Feel free to share yours.
Topic: Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money - page 4. (Read 24721 times)
December 12, 2012, 12:50:27 PM
December 12, 2012, 12:05:19 PM
Quote
middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....
I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.
I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.
We've covered this before... Morality != "code of ethics". If they were equivalent, then machines could be programmed with such a 'code' to act morally, and they could pass the Turing Test. Any "moral issue" that can be solved using logic is not really a moral issue.
Pose me a moral question, then, that cannot be solved using logic. Prove your assertion.
December 12, 2012, 12:00:37 PM
Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.
Feel free to share yours. December 12, 2012, 11:57:32 AM
Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?
That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.your logical fallacy is...
(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).
Quote
middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....
I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.
I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.
December 12, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?
That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.your logical fallacy is...
(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).
Quote
middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....
I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.
I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.
December 12, 2012, 11:02:03 AM
Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?
That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.your logical fallacy is...
(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).
December 12, 2012, 02:17:47 AM
Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?
That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.
He based this argument on the Bible. I'm afraid his faith is most likely lacking, if he refers to the Bible only for some adult/child interactions, and not all.
December 12, 2012, 02:09:22 AM
Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?
That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.I certainly hope this is the case. That is more like my interpretation of morality, except I cut out the God part and just have faith in my own emotions.
December 12, 2012, 01:33:12 AM
Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?
That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking. December 12, 2012, 01:12:04 AM
I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.
Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?
Either you use your own logic, or you use someone else's. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.
That's the best part about literal interpretation of the bible. You can justify anything by saying "See, the book says I can!" December 11, 2012, 11:40:41 PM
I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.
Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?
Either you use your own logic, or you use someone else's. Anything else is hypocrisy.
Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.
That's the best part about literal interpretation of the bible. You can justify anything by saying "See, the book says I can!" December 11, 2012, 11:35:06 PM
I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.
Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?
Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.
December 11, 2012, 11:32:40 PM
That book is not my only consideration. We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic. I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.
Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.
Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.
I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, because I don't consider faith something that can be proven or falsified. I just don't have that debate, and I have zero interest in spinning my wheels while listening to you attempt the impossible.
It's nothing personal, I've learned long ago that this is a topic best left unsaid.
But hypocrisy is something that can be proven... and by picking and choosing what you accept from the Bible as acceptable practices when dealing with children, specifically, considering beating the child as acceptable (because the bible approves) , and not infanticide as not acceptable (even though the bible approves, in certain circumstances, at least), proves your hypocrisy.
I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.
December 11, 2012, 09:35:32 PM
That book is not my only consideration. We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic. I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.
Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.
Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.
I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, because I don't consider faith something that can be proven or falsified. I just don't have that debate, and I have zero interest in spinning my wheels while listening to you attempt the impossible.
It's nothing personal, I've learned long ago that this is a topic best left unsaid.
December 11, 2012, 09:22:36 PM
That book is not my only consideration. We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic. I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.
Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.
Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.
December 11, 2012, 09:20:01 PM
Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?
There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values. Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.
I nver said that I was the kind of Christian that took it all as doctrine, Myrkul.
But you base your assertion that using pain to condition your kids is OK, and your assertion that "pimping them out" is not, on that same book. What criteria do you use to limit what you take as doctrine and what you do not?
That book is not my only consideration. We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic. I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.
December 11, 2012, 09:17:53 PM
...
Woah! Little babies, and twins too! You've got larger problems coming. Let me know how that is all working out for you in about two or three more years.
Woah! Little babies, and twins too! You've got larger problems coming. Let me know how that is all working out for you in about two or three more years.
I just want to know whether he regards babies crying in the middle of the night as coercion? Clearly he's been coerced out of his natural human right to sleep, right? On the other hand, it's possible that he negotiated some kind of special agreement with them where they agree to let him sleep at night in exchange for... I don't know... food or something.
More likely he just ignores them and his wife has to deal with it.
December 11, 2012, 06:19:40 PM
Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?
There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values. Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.
I nver said that I was the kind of Christian that took it all as doctrine, Myrkul.
But you base your assertion that using pain to condition your kids is OK, and your assertion that "pimping them out" is not, on that same book. What criteria do you use to limit what you take as doctrine and what you do not?
December 11, 2012, 06:05:05 PM
Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.
For you, as well. Are you ever going to tell me how old your daughters are, and if they have ever fought with each other?
I don't know that answer. Perhaps you could remind me?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=search
Suggested parameters: "Happy Birthday"; (titles only); By user: myrkul; In board: Off-Topic
Enjoy!
Woah! Little babies, and twins too! You've got larger problems coming. Let me know how that is all working out for you in about two or three more years.
Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?
There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values. Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.
I nver said that I was the kind of Christian that took it all as doctrine, Myrkul.
December 11, 2012, 05:47:37 PM
Far more interesting than what you have responded to, MoonShadow, is what you have not responded to.
For you, as well. Are you ever going to tell me how old your daughters are, and if they have ever fought with each other?
I don't know that answer. Perhaps you could remind me?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=search
Suggested parameters: "Happy Birthday"; (titles only); By user: myrkul; In board: Off-Topic
Enjoy!
Are you ever going to explain how you rationalize consenting for your children to be struck is OK, while consenting for your children to have sex is not?
There are lots of reasons that is so; not the least of which is that my moral code is based upon Judeo-Christian values. Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.
Jump to: