Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

The Parable of the Long Spoons is...

wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:00:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
...an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

http://www.debate.org...

This is a thread to discuss the above debate.

Personally, I found this debate to be extremely unsatisfying, because anything that required anything resembling an interesting rebuttal occurred in CON's closing. Also, CON's closing being almost as long as the rest of her arguments combined led to this not really being a debate, and it seems CON planned it that way.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:08:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:00:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
...an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

http://www.debate.org...

This is a thread to discuss the above debate.

Personally, I found this debate to be extremely unsatisfying, because anything that required anything resembling an interesting rebuttal occurred in CON's closing. Also, CON's closing being almost as long as the rest of her arguments combined led to this not really being a debate, and it seems CON planned it that way.

LOLZ. Parable of the long spoon sounds like enlightend self interest.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:09:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:08:51 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:00:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
...an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

http://www.debate.org...

This is a thread to discuss the above debate.

Personally, I found this debate to be extremely unsatisfying, because anything that required anything resembling an interesting rebuttal occurred in CON's closing. Also, CON's closing being almost as long as the rest of her arguments combined led to this not really being a debate, and it seems CON planned it that way.

LOLZ. Parable of the long spoon sounds like enlightend self interest.

Agree.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:10:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:09:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:08:51 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:00:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
...an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

http://www.debate.org...

This is a thread to discuss the above debate.

Personally, I found this debate to be extremely unsatisfying, because anything that required anything resembling an interesting rebuttal occurred in CON's closing. Also, CON's closing being almost as long as the rest of her arguments combined led to this not really being a debate, and it seems CON planned it that way.

LOLZ. Parable of the long spoon sounds like enlightend self interest.

Agree.

SO lets just say I want to jerk off and some body else wants to jerk off, well according to spoon theory......

You know what, how about we just ditch the spoon ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:11:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:10:52 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:09:45 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:08:51 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:00:48 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
...an Advocacy for Polyamory and Polygamy

http://www.debate.org...

This is a thread to discuss the above debate.

Personally, I found this debate to be extremely unsatisfying, because anything that required anything resembling an interesting rebuttal occurred in CON's closing. Also, CON's closing being almost as long as the rest of her arguments combined led to this not really being a debate, and it seems CON planned it that way.

LOLZ. Parable of the long spoon sounds like enlightend self interest.

Agree.

SO lets just say I want to jerk off and some body else wants to jerk off, well according to spoon theory......

You know what, how about we just ditch the spoon ?

If sex was simply about hedonism, then yes, your conception would be valid, IMHO. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:14:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would also add that the ridiculous amount of sexism in CON's comments was...extremely noticeable. I'm not sure why CON focused so much on what men would do, when obviously it takes men AND women to have sex and have babies.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:47:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
From the debate:

The parable does not specify if the people at the table break into pairs or groups of three or a larger network to help each other. Monogamy is totally consistent with the parable.

If anything, this is probably what the debate should have centered upon, but it didn't because the point came up in the final round of CON's closing.

The idea of polygamy and polyamory are fully consistent with the parable, because in hell, people are ever distrustful of others and don't help each other. Monogamy as a principle would be holding this distrust of anyone other than your one spouse. It is far more "hellish" than polygamy and polyamory.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:14:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:47:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the debate:

The parable does not specify if the people at the table break into pairs or groups of three or a larger network to help each other. Monogamy is totally consistent with the parable.

If anything, this is probably what the debate should have centered upon, but it didn't because the point came up in the final round of CON's closing.

Actually, I specifically argued this in the penultimate round. I said:

"I suggest that each person would only be able to feed another person at a time. Even though they have two arms (and may two spoons) if you're scooping stew or rice to feed someone else, you need to give it all your attention to get it into their mouth properly.

Therefore, the parable definitely advocates a one at a time policy, which corresponds to monogamy or serial monogamy. "


And anyway, right from the beginning I argued that a woman only needs one man to get pregnant, and that there's no additional benefit to polyandry. It's not my fault that your argument is weak.

The idea of polygamy and polyamory are fully consistent with the parable, because in hell, people are ever distrustful of others and don't help each other. Monogamy as a principle would be holding this distrust of anyone other than your one spouse. It is far more "hellish" than polygamy and polyamory.

It's not "distrusting" someone to refrain from having sex with them. It's impossible to have sex with everyone in the world even if you decide you want to. Some people are going to miss out. This is not distrusting people.

Think of it this way. A little baby is in a highchair and needs to be fed with a spoon. Does it make any difference to the baby if one person or a series of people do the feeding? Not at all. As long as the food goes in, that's all that matters.

Same with sex and procreation.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:16:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 10:14:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also add that the ridiculous amount of sexism in CON's comments was...extremely noticeable. I'm not sure why CON focused so much on what men would do, when obviously it takes men AND women to have sex and have babies.

Yeah? Well, some news for you, wrichcirw. Only women can get pregnant and bear children. Men can't do that. Realizing that difference may indeed be sexist, but sometimes it's better to be sane and sexist than totally irrational. Just saying.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 7:00:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:14:02 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:47:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the debate:

The parable does not specify if the people at the table break into pairs or groups of three or a larger network to help each other. Monogamy is totally consistent with the parable.

If anything, this is probably what the debate should have centered upon, but it didn't because the point came up in the final round of CON's closing.

Actually, I specifically argued this in the penultimate round. I said:

"I suggest that each person would only be able to feed another person at a time. Even though they have two arms (and may two spoons) if you're scooping stew or rice to feed someone else, you need to give it all your attention to get it into their mouth properly.

Therefore, the parable definitely advocates a one at a time policy, which corresponds to monogamy or serial monogamy. "


And anyway, right from the beginning I argued that a woman only needs one man to get pregnant, and that there's no additional benefit to polyandry. It's not my fault that your argument is weak.

If you were to extend this observation to the parable, you'd essentially be saying that there's no reason to have any more than two people sitting at the table, yes?

The idea of polygamy and polyamory are fully consistent with the parable, because in hell, people are ever distrustful of others and don't help each other. Monogamy as a principle would be holding this distrust of anyone other than your one spouse. It is far more "hellish" than polygamy and polyamory.

It's not "distrusting" someone to refrain from having sex with them. It's impossible to have sex with everyone in the world even if you decide you want to. Some people are going to miss out. This is not distrusting people.

So the question is, why limit yourself to one person? Wouldn't this inherently be an issue of trust of others, especially since in the debate it was shown that both men AND woman can indeed have multiple offspring with multiple partners?

Think of it this way. A little baby is in a highchair and needs to be fed with a spoon. Does it make any difference to the baby if one person or a series of people do the feeding? Not at all. As long as the food goes in, that's all that matters.

It would obviously matter a lot if you have to hire someone to provide a body to shove that spoon in the baby's mouth.

Same with sex and procreation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 7:03:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:16:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:14:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also add that the ridiculous amount of sexism in CON's comments was...extremely noticeable. I'm not sure why CON focused so much on what men would do, when obviously it takes men AND women to have sex and have babies.

Yeah? Well, some news for you, wrichcirw. Only women can get pregnant and bear children. Men can't do that. Realizing that difference may indeed be sexist, but sometimes it's better to be sane and sexist than totally irrational. Just saying.

lol, obviously we view this issue from wildly diverging perspectives.

My question for you would be "how does the parable justify monogamy over polygamy?" IMHO the nature of the parable, that you have MANY PEOPLE sitting at the table feeding each other would strongly suggest poly- over mono-.

I mean, sure, technically, you have a point in that the parable does not make this distinction clear...but it could have had the table sat only two people. It doesn't, and because it doesn't, it clearly does not stipulate a mono- restriction.

Then, all the arguments I put forth about the benefits of poly- would apply, and are indeed consistent with the nature of the story of the parable, that poly- comes with more benefits.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 8:53:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would have liked more discussion on whether the food could have stood for sex, because I found myself ultimately unconvinced on that point either way. It seems like the food should stand for survival or (in a Christian context) a 'virtuous life' or something. Wrichcirw argued that sex is good because it's a means to reproduction, but then I don't see why reproduction, or a happy family life etc, couldn't be the 'good in itself' rather than sex. I found Rross' comment ('the parable and sex') regarding that in the final round convincing.

I also found Wrichcirw's argument that the story stipulates unlimited resources convincing, and Rross seemed to ignore it in many arguments where she stressed limited time etc, such as the argument that "Eventually, the whole world would live in the same house" (which btw was weirdly poetic, lol).
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:22:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:16:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:14:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also add that the ridiculous amount of sexism in CON's comments was...extremely noticeable. I'm not sure why CON focused so much on what men would do, when obviously it takes men AND women to have sex and have babies.

Yeah? Well, some news for you, wrichcirw. Only women can get pregnant and bear children. Men can't do that. Realizing that difference may indeed be sexist, but sometimes it's better to be sane and sexist than totally irrational. Just saying.

I will revisit this comment by asking you, point blank, what relevance this line of thinking has with the resolution of the debate in question?

Given the overall lack of relevance (outside of the concerns that it takes 9 months to birth a child), it comes across as nothing but sexist jabs and smears. It would be no different than had I said something along the lines of "a woman's place is in the kitchen" in regards to this debate, to counter your assertions that "all men are deadbeats".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:23:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 8:53:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
I would have liked more discussion on whether the food could have stood for sex, because I found myself ultimately unconvinced on that point either way. It seems like the food should stand for survival or (in a Christian context) a 'virtuous life' or something. Wrichcirw argued that sex is good because it's a means to reproduction, but then I don't see why reproduction, or a happy family life etc, couldn't be the 'good in itself' rather than sex. I found Rross' comment ('the parable and sex') regarding that in the final round convincing.

Agree, the steak and potatoes example was not particularly well thought out...but the real question is upon what basis did rross even have to assume the parable was about monogamy to begin with?

I also found Wrichcirw's argument that the story stipulates unlimited resources convincing, and Rross seemed to ignore it in many arguments where she stressed limited time etc, such as the argument that "Eventually, the whole world would live in the same house" (which btw was weirdly poetic, lol).

This was very much along the lines of where I wished the debate went, but never did.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:18:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 5:23:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:53:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
I would have liked more discussion on whether the food could have stood for sex, because I found myself ultimately unconvinced on that point either way. It seems like the food should stand for survival or (in a Christian context) a 'virtuous life' or something. Wrichcirw argued that sex is good because it's a means to reproduction, but then I don't see why reproduction, or a happy family life etc, couldn't be the 'good in itself' rather than sex. I found Rross' comment ('the parable and sex') regarding that in the final round convincing.

Agree, the steak and potatoes example was not particularly well thought out...but the real question is upon what basis did rross even have to assume the parable was about monogamy to begin with?

ExcUSE me? I never assumed that. I was repetitively clear that the parable doesn't address the issue of mono- vs polygamy at all.

I also found Wrichcirw's argument that the story stipulates unlimited resources convincing, and Rross seemed to ignore it in many arguments where she stressed limited time etc, such as the argument that "Eventually, the whole world would live in the same house" (which btw was weirdly poetic, lol).

This was very much along the lines of where I wished the debate went, but never did.

Well, I don't understand this argument about limited resources.

If the "good" of sex is to produce offspring, as wrichcirw claimed, then how can the resources of that NOT be limited? Just as, the people eating food can only have a mouthful at a time. How is that unlimited resources?
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:20:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 5:22:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:16:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:14:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also add that the ridiculous amount of sexism in CON's comments was...extremely noticeable. I'm not sure why CON focused so much on what men would do, when obviously it takes men AND women to have sex and have babies.

Yeah? Well, some news for you, wrichcirw. Only women can get pregnant and bear children. Men can't do that. Realizing that difference may indeed be sexist, but sometimes it's better to be sane and sexist than totally irrational. Just saying.

I will revisit this comment by asking you, point blank, what relevance this line of thinking has with the resolution of the debate in question?

Given the overall lack of relevance (outside of the concerns that it takes 9 months to birth a child), it comes across as nothing but sexist jabs and smears. It would be no different than had I said something along the lines of "a woman's place is in the kitchen" in regards to this debate, to counter your assertions that "all men are deadbeats".

o_O Are you pretending to quote me? I have never said that "all men are deadbeats".

Speaking of sexism, where in the debate is the discussion about polyandry? Oh no, it's all polygamy. AND you framed the debate thinking about unlimited offspring, admit it. Such sexist thinking. It makes me feel faint with horror.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:21:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 12:54:22 PM, johnlubba wrote:
Yay Rross and Wrich on the religious forum. )

Aha so this is where you've been all this time, Mr J Lubba. :)
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:33:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 7:00:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:14:02 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:47:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the debate:

The parable does not specify if the people at the table break into pairs or groups of three or a larger network to help each other. Monogamy is totally consistent with the parable.

If anything, this is probably what the debate should have centered upon, but it didn't because the point came up in the final round of CON's closing.

Actually, I specifically argued this in the penultimate round. I said:

"I suggest that each person would only be able to feed another person at a time. Even though they have two arms (and may two spoons) if you're scooping stew or rice to feed someone else, you need to give it all your attention to get it into their mouth properly.

Therefore, the parable definitely advocates a one at a time policy, which corresponds to monogamy or serial monogamy. "


And anyway, right from the beginning I argued that a woman only needs one man to get pregnant, and that there's no additional benefit to polyandry. It's not my fault that your argument is weak.

If you were to extend this observation to the parable, you'd essentially be saying that there's no reason to have any more than two people sitting at the table, yes?

Actually, the parable doesn't specify the number of people. I've always imagined about 20 for some reason. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The feeding interaction would mean - as I said in the debate - focusing on one person at a time BUT probably within the context of a general social awareness so that nobody misses out.

The idea of polygamy and polyamory are fully consistent with the parable, because in hell, people are ever distrustful of others and don't help each other. Monogamy as a principle would be holding this distrust of anyone other than your one spouse. It is far more "hellish" than polygamy and polyamory.

It's not "distrusting" someone to refrain from having sex with them. It's impossible to have sex with everyone in the world even if you decide you want to. Some people are going to miss out. This is not distrusting people.

So the question is, why limit yourself to one person? Wouldn't this inherently be an issue of trust of others, especially since in the debate it was shown that both men AND woman can indeed have multiple offspring with multiple partners?

Why would it be an issue of trust? It's like saying, why go out to see a concert with one friend? Why not go out in a group? But is a group inherently better? I don't think that's true, and I definitely don't think it's in the parable. Although maybe there's the idea that you should invite lonely people who might like to go too...

Hmmm. This reminds me a lot of arguments that women should have sex when they don't particularly want to because it's only a slight inconvenience to them and it's such joy to the man. I even read some hippie guy saying that there should be women volunteers to have sex with undesirable men...

Take that further and say that women should give birth to babies that they've conceived with undesirable men out of a sense of charity and the whole thing becomes obscene. Of course, women have to look at those children for the rest of their lives, probably every day. They can only have a limited number of children, so of course they should make sure that their procreative partner is as attractive as possible. That's just common sense, and if men are following the idea of the parable and thinking of others, they would totally agree.

Think of it this way. A little baby is in a highchair and needs to be fed with a spoon. Does it make any difference to the baby if one person or a series of people do the feeding? Not at all. As long as the food goes in, that's all that matters.

It would obviously matter a lot if you have to hire someone to provide a body to shove that spoon in the baby's mouth.

What are you talking about?

Same with sex and procreation.
mrsatan
Posts: 428
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 4:24:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Personally, the parable doesn't strike me as being about morals, at all. Really, it can be summed up in a sentence:

Simple cooperation can be the difference between suffering and prosperity.

And yes, cooperation can be moral, but only if the goal in mind is a moral one. If If the goal is not moral, then neither is the cooperation. But in either case, cooperation is present, and that is what the parable advocates.

In the debate, wrichcirw says, "4) "Table with food". This is the second symbolic representation of the parable. How the people interact with this "table" determines whether or not we are in heaven or hell. In heaven, people can fully interact with the table despite their limitations, whereas in hell, people cannot."

This is not accurate. The people at the "heaven table" have the same limitations as those at the "hell table". The difference is, those at the heaven table trust each other to return the kindness of feeding. Those at the hell table don't. Because of this, the heaven table cooperates and prospers from it, while the hell table does not cooperate and suffers from it.

So one could also say the parable is about trust, but only because trust is a necessary component of cooperation.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:41:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 10:20:38 AM, rross wrote:
At 5/1/2014 5:22:12 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:16:29 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:14:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also add that the ridiculous amount of sexism in CON's comments was...extremely noticeable. I'm not sure why CON focused so much on what men would do, when obviously it takes men AND women to have sex and have babies.

Yeah? Well, some news for you, wrichcirw. Only women can get pregnant and bear children. Men can't do that. Realizing that difference may indeed be sexist, but sometimes it's better to be sane and sexist than totally irrational. Just saying.

I will revisit this comment by asking you, point blank, what relevance this line of thinking has with the resolution of the debate in question?

Given the overall lack of relevance (outside of the concerns that it takes 9 months to birth a child), it comes across as nothing but sexist jabs and smears. It would be no different than had I said something along the lines of "a woman's place is in the kitchen" in regards to this debate, to counter your assertions that "all men are deadbeats".

o_O Are you pretending to quote me? I have never said that "all men are deadbeats".

It is extremely strongly implied in your arguments. It's also extremely strongly implied in your arguments that I supposedly did make arguments along the lines of "a woman's place is in the kitchen".

Speaking of sexism, where in the debate is the discussion about polyandry? Oh no, it's all polygamy. AND you framed the debate thinking about unlimited offspring, admit it. Such sexist thinking. It makes me feel faint with horror.

This is your own ignorance speaking out. Polygamy is the gender-neutral term. Polyandry is a woman having many husbands, and polygyny is a man having many wives.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:44:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 10:18:25 AM, rross wrote:
At 5/1/2014 5:23:27 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/30/2014 8:53:21 AM, sdavio wrote:
I would have liked more discussion on whether the food could have stood for sex, because I found myself ultimately unconvinced on that point either way. It seems like the food should stand for survival or (in a Christian context) a 'virtuous life' or something. Wrichcirw argued that sex is good because it's a means to reproduction, but then I don't see why reproduction, or a happy family life etc, couldn't be the 'good in itself' rather than sex. I found Rross' comment ('the parable and sex') regarding that in the final round convincing.

Agree, the steak and potatoes example was not particularly well thought out...but the real question is upon what basis did rross even have to assume the parable was about monogamy to begin with?

ExcUSE me? I never assumed that. I was repetitively clear that the parable doesn't address the issue of mono- vs polygamy at all.

It's because assuming it did brings out a false distinction. It's ridiculous to think that many people sitting at a table would only choose one person to help out to the exclusion of the others sitting at the table.

I also found Wrichcirw's argument that the story stipulates unlimited resources convincing, and Rross seemed to ignore it in many arguments where she stressed limited time etc, such as the argument that "Eventually, the whole world would live in the same house" (which btw was weirdly poetic, lol).

This was very much along the lines of where I wished the debate went, but never did.

Well, I don't understand this argument about limited resources.

If the "good" of sex is to produce offspring, as wrichcirw claimed, then how can the resources of that NOT be limited? Just as, the people eating food can only have a mouthful at a time. How is that unlimited resources?

You can extrapolate this out through modern science, perhaps one day procreation will not be limited by pregnancy, perhaps we will all be "test tube babies" and perhaps the sperm and even the eggs would all be clonable. You can attempt to eliminate the limitations inherent in procreation, thereby making the "table of sex" plentiful indeed.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:50:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 10:33:43 AM, rross wrote:
At 4/30/2014 7:00:13 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/27/2014 9:14:02 PM, rross wrote:
At 4/27/2014 10:47:05 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
From the debate:

The parable does not specify if the people at the table break into pairs or groups of three or a larger network to help each other. Monogamy is totally consistent with the parable.

If anything, this is probably what the debate should have centered upon, but it didn't because the point came up in the final round of CON's closing.

Actually, I specifically argued this in the penultimate round. I said:

"I suggest that each person would only be able to feed another person at a time. Even though they have two arms (and may two spoons) if you're scooping stew or rice to feed someone else, you need to give it all your attention to get it into their mouth properly.

Therefore, the parable definitely advocates a one at a time policy, which corresponds to monogamy or serial monogamy. "


And anyway, right from the beginning I argued that a woman only needs one man to get pregnant, and that there's no additional benefit to polyandry. It's not my fault that your argument is weak.

If you were to extend this observation to the parable, you'd essentially be saying that there's no reason to have any more than two people sitting at the table, yes?

Actually, the parable doesn't specify the number of people. I've always imagined about 20 for some reason. Anyway, it doesn't matter. The feeding interaction would mean - as I said in the debate - focusing on one person at a time BUT probably within the context of a general social awareness so that nobody misses out.

How does this possibly imply serial monogamy? Why would anyone reject someone else sitting at the table in favor of someone else?

The idea of polygamy and polyamory are fully consistent with the parable, because in hell, people are ever distrustful of others and don't help each other. Monogamy as a principle would be holding this distrust of anyone other than your one spouse. It is far more "hellish" than polygamy and polyamory.

It's not "distrusting" someone to refrain from having sex with them. It's impossible to have sex with everyone in the world even if you decide you want to. Some people are going to miss out. This is not distrusting people.

So the question is, why limit yourself to one person? Wouldn't this inherently be an issue of trust of others, especially since in the debate it was shown that both men AND woman can indeed have multiple offspring with multiple partners?

Why would it be an issue of trust? It's like saying, why go out to see a concert with one friend? Why not go out in a group? But is a group inherently better? I don't think that's true, and I definitely don't think it's in the parable. Although maybe there's the idea that you should invite lonely people who might like to go too...

This doesn't even make any sense. You can go to a concert yourself. You cannot feed yourself when there are restrictions (the long spoons), nor can you procreate by yourself. You need HELP to do it. You don't need HELP to enjoy a concert.

Hmmm. This reminds me a lot of arguments that women should have sex when they don't particularly want to because it's only a slight inconvenience to them and it's such joy to the man. I even read some hippie guy saying that there should be women volunteers to have sex with undesirable men...

Irrelevant segway.

Take that further and say that women should give birth to babies that they've conceived with undesirable men out of a sense of charity and the whole thing becomes obscene. Of course, women have to look at those children for the rest of their lives, probably every day. They can only have a limited number of children, so of course they should make sure that their procreative partner is as attractive as possible. That's just common sense, and if men are following the idea of the parable and thinking of others, they would totally agree.

"The table is plentiful".

Think of it this way. A little baby is in a highchair and needs to be fed with a spoon. Does it make any difference to the baby if one person or a series of people do the feeding? Not at all. As long as the food goes in, that's all that matters.

It would obviously matter a lot if you have to hire someone to provide a body to shove that spoon in the baby's mouth.

What are you talking about?

If there is only one or two parents, that's a limitation on the caregiving to the child. Many people hire babysitters, I'm sure you're aware of this marvelous phenomenon.

Same with sex and procreation.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:52:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 4:24:40 PM, mrsatan wrote:
Personally, the parable doesn't strike me as being about morals, at all. Really, it can be summed up in a sentence:

Simple cooperation can be the difference between suffering and prosperity.

And yes, cooperation can be moral, but only if the goal in mind is a moral one. If If the goal is not moral, then neither is the cooperation. But in either case, cooperation is present, and that is what the parable advocates.


In the debate, wrichcirw says, "4) "Table with food". This is the second symbolic representation of the parable. How the people interact with this "table" determines whether or not we are in heaven or hell. In heaven, people can fully interact with the table despite their limitations, whereas in hell, people cannot."

This is not accurate. The people at the "heaven table" have the same limitations as those at the "hell table". The difference is, those at the heaven table trust each other to return the kindness of feeding. Those at the hell table don't. Because of this, the heaven table cooperates and prospers from it, while the hell table does not cooperate and suffers from it.

So one could also say the parable is about trust, but only because trust is a necessary component of cooperation.

The trust aspect is certainly there, but so is the aspect of self-limitation, which is what my quote is about, and is accurate. In heaven, self-limitation is not a factor, because people help each other.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?