Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

What makes tricking senile people wrong?

Jovian
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 11:47:39 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
See this as a sequel to my other thread "What makes sex with mentally disabled wrong?", where I ask that question to the type of Christians who won't accept consent as an argument for accepting homosexuality.

In that thread, Mhykiel wrote this:

It could be wrong to have sex with a mentally ill person. And it may not be. Are so stuck in the mud that you think a mentally retarded person has no capability to consent. Why bother asking them what flavor ice cream they like? clearly they can choose that but not sex.

This is not something I am copying in order to attack Mhykiel, and Mhykiel is far away from the only one who doesn't accept the argument about consent whether a sexual act is OK or not. For example, Fatihah was called out about a similar reasoning in this thread http://www.debate.org...

This argument is mostly popular when someone tries to explain for this kind of people that homosexuality absolutely couldn't be equated with pedophilia and bestiality, a dominion which they like to put homosexuality in, because there is an ability for homosexuals to consent, which children and animals can't. Then they go on about how children and animals actually could consent, despite legal consent meaning something totally different than solely saying "Yes!" after having been fooled.

But from what we could see in this anti-consent law reasoning, anyone could legally consent to anything. These religious people do not have any aspect of consent when showing why pedophilia or bestiality would be wrong, they say they are wrong because God said so.

And if anyone really could legally consent to anything, there wouldn't be anything wrong at all for someone working on a retirement home to fool a senile 96 year old in writing a will giving his 5 million dollars to the worker, instead of the 96 year old's children. That would make it like if the old man seemingly consented to the it, right? Any country's lawyers would nullify this will, given how senile the 96 year old was when he wrote it. But if consent never should be an argument for anything, what makes this act wrong? Or what makes fooling a 5 year old to sign a contract saying "I hereby bind myself to clean the park every day for the rest of my life" wrong?

Yes, why? Here comes the the same options I had in my previous thread:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the children and the old peoples' incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this tricking (and I don't think many people would be OK with having someone tricking their senile parents).
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 1:47:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 11:47:39 AM, Jovian wrote:
See this as a sequel to my other thread "What makes sex with mentally disabled wrong?", where I ask that question to the type of Christians who won't accept consent as an argument for accepting homosexuality.

In that thread, Mhykiel wrote this:

It could be wrong to have sex with a mentally ill person. And it may not be. Are so stuck in the mud that you think a mentally retarded person has no capability to consent. Why bother asking them what flavor ice cream they like? clearly they can choose that but not sex.

This is not something I am copying in order to attack Mhykiel, and Mhykiel is far away from the only one who doesn't accept the argument about consent whether a sexual act is OK or not. For example, Fatihah was called out about a similar reasoning in this thread http://www.debate.org...

This argument is mostly popular when someone tries to explain for this kind of people that homosexuality absolutely couldn't be equated with pedophilia and bestiality, a dominion which they like to put homosexuality in, because there is an ability for homosexuals to consent, which children and animals can't. Then they go on about how children and animals actually could consent, despite legal consent meaning something totally different than solely saying "Yes!" after having been fooled.

But from what we could see in this anti-consent law reasoning, anyone could legally consent to anything. These religious people do not have any aspect of consent when showing why pedophilia or bestiality would be wrong, they say they are wrong because God said so.

And if anyone really could legally consent to anything, there wouldn't be anything wrong at all for someone working on a retirement home to fool a senile 96 year old in writing a will giving his 5 million dollars to the worker, instead of the 96 year old's children. That would make it like if the old man seemingly consented to the it, right? Any country's lawyers would nullify this will, given how senile the 96 year old was when he wrote it. But if consent never should be an argument for anything, what makes this act wrong? Or what makes fooling a 5 year old to sign a contract saying "I hereby bind myself to clean the park every day for the rest of my life" wrong?

Yes, why? Here comes the the same options I had in my previous thread:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the children and the old peoples' incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this tricking (and I don't think many people would be OK with having someone tricking their senile parents).

Response: Notice the caricature used by your own argument. This is common with atheists/agnostics. They cannot address or refute the actual argument, and must employ a caricature of the argument to address it. Hence, a strawman argument.

Above, we see Jovian interchange the words consent and "legal consent". Thus the strawman begins here. It is a fact that a child can consent. This is the position both myself and Mhykiel are claiming. We both are referring to the actual meaning of the word consent, which simply means to approve of something. Approval can be implied by saying yes or no or showing like or dislike to something. A child can do BOTH. Therefore a child can consent. Period.

Jovian and other non-religious people respond by referring to "legal consent". Not the actual literal definition of consent. Hence, a strawman. No one is arguing based on legal consent. You are. This claim is followed by "because God says so" despite not once have I ever said it is wrong because God said so. Another failed strawman.
On top of that, since it is your position that it is wrong because a child cannot legally consent, that means that right and wrong is not based on logic or reason but whatever the law says so. Thus admitting your position is not based on any logic.

So we see that the non-religious have no argument to stand upon and must make a caricature of an argument to try to make a point. Yet the fact that you must address a caricature and not the actual argument means that the argument of the religious must be valid. Thus refuting yourself in the process and confirming the fact that homosexuality is wrong just as pedophilia and bestiality is wrong.
Jovian
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 2:02:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 1:47:28 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/9/2016 11:47:39 AM, Jovian wrote:
See this as a sequel to my other thread "What makes sex with mentally disabled wrong?", where I ask that question to the type of Christians who won't accept consent as an argument for accepting homosexuality.

In that thread, Mhykiel wrote this:

It could be wrong to have sex with a mentally ill person. And it may not be. Are so stuck in the mud that you think a mentally retarded person has no capability to consent. Why bother asking them what flavor ice cream they like? clearly they can choose that but not sex.

This is not something I am copying in order to attack Mhykiel, and Mhykiel is far away from the only one who doesn't accept the argument about consent whether a sexual act is OK or not. For example, Fatihah was called out about a similar reasoning in this thread http://www.debate.org...

This argument is mostly popular when someone tries to explain for this kind of people that homosexuality absolutely couldn't be equated with pedophilia and bestiality, a dominion which they like to put homosexuality in, because there is an ability for homosexuals to consent, which children and animals can't. Then they go on about how children and animals actually could consent, despite legal consent meaning something totally different than solely saying "Yes!" after having been fooled.

But from what we could see in this anti-consent law reasoning, anyone could legally consent to anything. These religious people do not have any aspect of consent when showing why pedophilia or bestiality would be wrong, they say they are wrong because God said so.

And if anyone really could legally consent to anything, there wouldn't be anything wrong at all for someone working on a retirement home to fool a senile 96 year old in writing a will giving his 5 million dollars to the worker, instead of the 96 year old's children. That would make it like if the old man seemingly consented to the it, right? Any country's lawyers would nullify this will, given how senile the 96 year old was when he wrote it. But if consent never should be an argument for anything, what makes this act wrong? Or what makes fooling a 5 year old to sign a contract saying "I hereby bind myself to clean the park every day for the rest of my life" wrong?

Yes, why? Here comes the the same options I had in my previous thread:

A. Throwing in the towel and come up with the obvious argument of the children and the old peoples' incapability to legally consent.
B. Not seeing anything wrong with this tricking (and I don't think many people would be OK with having someone tricking their senile parents).

Response: Notice the caricature used by your own argument. This is common with atheists/agnostics. They cannot address or refute the actual argument, and must employ a caricature of the argument to address it. Hence, a strawman argument.

Above, we see Jovian interchange the words consent and "legal consent". Thus the strawman begins here. It is a fact that a child can consent. This is the position both myself and Mhykiel are claiming. We both are referring to the actual meaning of the word consent, which simply means to approve of something. Approval can be implied by saying yes or no or showing like or dislike to something. A child can do BOTH. Therefore a child can consent. Period.

Jovian and other non-religious people respond by referring to "legal consent". Not the actual literal definition of consent. Hence, a strawman. No one is arguing based on legal consent.

The LEGAL consent is always implied when people talk about laws. Anyone knows that there are tons of cases where children defend their pedophiliac perpetrators.

You are. This claim is followed by "because God says so" despite not once have I ever said it is wrong because God said so. Another failed strawman.

I don't know about you, and I didn't adress this thread to you personally, but most conservative religious people write that you could only make something morally wrong by having a holy book saying it is wrong. Like Mhykiel does in my previous thread with bestiality and homosexuality.

On top of that, since it is your position that it is wrong because a child cannot legally consent, that means that right and wrong is not based on logic or reason but whatever the law says so. Thus admitting your position is not based on any logic.

And the law says so out of hundreds of years of psychological studies and common sense. That's something else than "I, your God, says this is wrong, thus it is, and I won't ever tell you why!".

So we see that the non-religious have no argument to stand upon and must make a caricature of an argument to try to make a point. Yet the fact that you must address a caricature and not the actual argument means that the argument of the religious must be valid. Thus refuting yourself in the process and confirming the fact that homosexuality is wrong just as pedophilia and bestiality is wrong.

This is not a caricature, thus refuting yourself in the process and confirming the fact that homosexuality is not wrong at all while pedophilia and bestiality are. (your favourite ending of posts backlashed at you)
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 3:57:55 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 2:02:25 PM, Jovian wrote:

The LEGAL consent is always implied when people talk about laws. Anyone knows that there are tons of cases where children defend their pedophiliac perpetrators.

I don't know about you, and I didn't adress this thread to you personally, but most conservative religious people write that you could only make something morally wrong by having a holy book saying it is wrong. Like Mhykiel does in my previous thread with bestiality and homosexuality.


And the law says so out of hundreds of years of psychological studies and common sense. That's something else than "I, your God, says this is wrong, thus it is, and I won't ever tell you why!".



This is not a caricature, thus refuting yourself in the process and confirming the fact that homosexuality is not wrong at all while pedophilia and bestiality are. (your favourite ending of posts backlashed at you)

Response: If it is right or okay for homosexuals to have sex with each other but not for people to have sex with a child and this is backed by logic reasoning, then provide one piece of logical evidence that shows that homosexual sex is okay but not pedophilia.
Jovian
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 4:03:01 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 3:57:55 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/9/2016 2:02:25 PM, Jovian wrote:

The LEGAL consent is always implied when people talk about laws. Anyone knows that there are tons of cases where children defend their pedophiliac perpetrators.

I don't know about you, and I didn't adress this thread to you personally, but most conservative religious people write that you could only make something morally wrong by having a holy book saying it is wrong. Like Mhykiel does in my previous thread with bestiality and homosexuality.


And the law says so out of hundreds of years of psychological studies and common sense. That's something else than "I, your God, says this is wrong, thus it is, and I won't ever tell you why!".



This is not a caricature, thus refuting yourself in the process and confirming the fact that homosexuality is not wrong at all while pedophilia and bestiality are. (your favourite ending of posts backlashed at you)

Response: If it is right or okay for homosexuals to have sex with each other but not for people to have sex with a child and this is backed by logic reasoning, then provide one piece of logical evidence that shows that homosexual sex is okay but not pedophilia.

Adult homosexuals have (mostly) the capability of understanding what they are doing, while a child isn't evolved enough for understanding such. In your reasoning: Consent which is approved vs consent which by science isn't approved. Even if you could find a 12 year old mastermind somewhere, the majority of them are not able to do that, and should thus be protected.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2016 9:53:41 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Any attempt to defraud a person deliberately or intentionally through misrepresenting is a violation and carries criminal charges. It is just as offensive if the victim is senile.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,714
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 3:44:06 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 4:03:01 PM, Jovian wrote:

Adult homosexuals have (mostly) the capability of understanding what they are doing, while a child isn't evolved enough for understanding such. In your reasoning: Consent which is approved vs consent which by science isn't approved. Even if you could find a 12 year old mastermind somewhere, the majority of them are not able to do that, and should thus be protected.

Response: So your argument boils down to it is wrong to have sex with a child because the child lacks understanding. Using your own logic, a parent should not feed their newborn or wash them since the child does not understand it. Your logic fails.

Both homosexuality and pedophilia is wrong because it not only destroys a society and the family but homosexual sex is based on lust, not love, which is harmful emotionally and psychologically and pedophilia causes harm later in life because the child will confuse love and lust later on and suffer the same harm psychological and emotional damage based on lust as in the practice of homosexuality.
bulproof
Posts: 25,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 10:48:39 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 3:44:06 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 8/9/2016 4:03:01 PM, Jovian wrote:

Adult homosexuals have (mostly) the capability of understanding what they are doing, while a child isn't evolved enough for understanding such. In your reasoning: Consent which is approved vs consent which by science isn't approved. Even if you could find a 12 year old mastermind somewhere, the majority of them are not able to do that, and should thus be protected.

Response: So your argument boils down to it is wrong to have sex with a child because the child lacks understanding. Using your own logic, a parent should not feed their newborn or wash them since the child does not understand it. Your logic fails.

Both homosexuality and pedophilia is wrong because it not only destroys a society and the family but homosexual sex is based on lust, not love, which is harmful emotionally and psychologically and pedophilia causes harm later in life because the child will confuse love and lust later on and suffer the same harm psychological and emotional damage based on lust as in the practice of homosexuality.
You godbotherers are always complaining about not being allowed to fck little kids. In your case I can see why you want to follow what one of your gods did, but that doesn't make it right.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 12:41:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.

And where was there any hate exactly.....? and I don't believe we've talked before, so your claim of "sincerity" will be evaluated by me not you. If you don't think I'm sincere you are seriously mistaken.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 12:43:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 12:41:23 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.

And where was there any hate exactly.....? and I don't believe we've talked before, so your claim of "sincerity" will be evaluated by me not you. If you don't think I'm sincere you are seriously mistaken.

You took that wrong (I hope). You are accustomed to getting attacked by atheists on here. I enjoy religious discussion with religious people, and would like to ignore the haters who follow. I was being sincere.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 12:45:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 12:43:26 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:41:23 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.

And where was there any hate exactly.....? and I don't believe we've talked before, so your claim of "sincerity" will be evaluated by me not you. If you don't think I'm sincere you are seriously mistaken.

You took that wrong (I hope). You are accustomed to getting attacked by atheists on here. I enjoy religious discussion with religious people, and would like to ignore the haters who follow. I was being sincere.

Lol, yes I am accustomed, excuse me my apologies.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 12:50:06 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 12:45:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:43:26 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:41:23 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.

And where was there any hate exactly.....? and I don't believe we've talked before, so your claim of "sincerity" will be evaluated by me not you. If you don't think I'm sincere you are seriously mistaken.

You took that wrong (I hope). You are accustomed to getting attacked by atheists on here. I enjoy religious discussion with religious people, and would like to ignore the haters who follow. I was being sincere.

Lol, yes I am accustomed, excuse me my apologies.

No worries. You post anything pro religion, especially pro Christian on here it's like jumping on fire ants.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
EtrnlVw
Posts: 2,307
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 12:59:02 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 12:50:06 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:45:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:43:26 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:41:23 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.

And where was there any hate exactly.....? and I don't believe we've talked before, so your claim of "sincerity" will be evaluated by me not you. If you don't think I'm sincere you are seriously mistaken.

You took that wrong (I hope). You are accustomed to getting attacked by atheists on here. I enjoy religious discussion with religious people, and would like to ignore the haters who follow. I was being sincere.

Lol, yes I am accustomed, excuse me my apologies.

No worries. You post anything pro religion, especially pro Christian on here it's like jumping on fire ants.

I actually closed my previous account because it got so bad every response was either "lying, mentally ill, delusional," ect ... then there was a short period where the moderators were attempting to clean things up for the sake of efficiency and progress and that sounded great and I rejoined.
That was short lived and now it's the same garbage over and over.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 12:59:02 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:50:06 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:45:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:43:26 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:41:23 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.

And where was there any hate exactly.....? and I don't believe we've talked before, so your claim of "sincerity" will be evaluated by me not you. If you don't think I'm sincere you are seriously mistaken.

You took that wrong (I hope). You are accustomed to getting attacked by atheists on here. I enjoy religious discussion with religious people, and would like to ignore the haters who follow. I was being sincere.

Lol, yes I am accustomed, excuse me my apologies.

No worries. You post anything pro religion, especially pro Christian on here it's like jumping on fire ants.

I actually closed my previous account because it got so bad every response was either "lying, mentally ill, delusional," ect ... then there was a short period where the moderators were attempting to clean things up for the sake of efficiency and progress and that sounded great and I rejoined.
That was short lived and now it's the same garbage over and over.

People don't understand the difference between the Debates section and Forums section. In forums, when I post something which is not an invitation to argue, and someone wants to argue, I just dismiss it with "OK". Unless the original post is framed in a way that invites opposition, forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 5:26:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Jovian, I think the main issue you have here is that monotheistic dualists (i.e. people who believe in God, Satan and Sin) hold that morality has nothing directly to do with human benefit, but rather to do with the outcome of a mythical genocidal war.

In a war, sacrifices have to be made, and some are chosen and some are imposed. A great deal of the morality of monotheist dualists involves imposing involuntary sacrifices on others just so they can win a paranoid war that cannot be observed between two parties they cannot prove exist, and which you can't opt out of anyway, even if you don't believe in it.

They cannot possibly justify this in evidenced terms of human harm or benefit, so they adopt positions of purse-lipped sanctimony instead, while invoking freedoms (of thought, speech, religion and association) their own canon itself repudiates -- and shifting the burden of either supporting or debunking their imaginary war onto others as much as possible.

And this is why moral analogies meant to appeal to compassion, equality and dignity fail to register: their own canon repudiates compassion except to their own, denies equality because theirs is a faith tailored for conquest and empire, and does not acknowledge human dignity because no theocracy can ever pay human dignity more than lip-service.

Not all monotheism is dualistic: Judaism largely isn't, and many former dualists (especially Christians) have thankfully been moving away from that position. But this paranoid, malignant insanity illustrates precisely why monotheistic dualism is among the most bigoted, superstitious, oppressive and evil of all religious beliefs today.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 5:54:04 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
... forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

Is this where to go for an argument?
https://www.youtube.com...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 7:12:12 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 12:59:02 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:50:06 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:45:56 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:43:26 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:41:23 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
At 8/10/2016 12:23:25 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/9/2016 12:55:51 PM, EtrnlVw wrote:
I would be tickled pink if you ever came up with a topic that was actually relevant to something Jesus taught, something relevant to the reality of religion, it's meanings and purposes.
So much we could talk about here in this forum that would be interesting, so many deeper concerns none of which we ever get to do because of all the misrepresentations, misunderstandings, displaced aggression, straw men, accusing people of lying, accusing people of delusions, smoke screens, distractions, assertions, assumptions ect...oh excuse me, did I ramble there?

Post a topic for discussion. Those of us who are sincere can participate and redact the comments of the haters as we go.

And where was there any hate exactly.....? and I don't believe we've talked before, so your claim of "sincerity" will be evaluated by me not you. If you don't think I'm sincere you are seriously mistaken.

You took that wrong (I hope). You are accustomed to getting attacked by atheists on here. I enjoy religious discussion with religious people, and would like to ignore the haters who follow. I was being sincere.

Lol, yes I am accustomed, excuse me my apologies.

No worries. You post anything pro religion, especially pro Christian on here it's like jumping on fire ants.

I actually closed my previous account because it got so bad every response was either "lying, mentally ill, delusional," ect ... then there was a short period where the moderators were attempting to clean things up for the sake of efficiency and progress and that sounded great and I rejoined.
But there are scriptural evidence that lying , mentally ill, delusional, etc are what was attributed to Jesus and his followers I.e Christians like you who have also been diagnosed suffering the same character flaws and mental disorders.

Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness

That was short lived and now it's the same garbage over and over.
Your delusional belief system did not change with the layoff. So why were you surprised you received the same reception?
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 7:36:11 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 5:54:04 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
... forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

Is this where to go for an argument?
https://www.youtube.com...

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
Unless the original post is framed in a way that invites opposition, forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

All ideas are subject to accountability for their reasoning, Throwback, and in a debate forum, questions, challenges and alternative contentions should be expected. However, I'd agree that the most constructive way to explore an idea is not always a win-or-lose contest with another fixed idea. Sometimes it's better to explore implications and alternatives open-endedly, perhaps in parallel, with comparison and contrast but without prolonged contention.

I think this is an especially useful approach in the Religion forum, since we know that 84% of the world comprises people 'of faith' -- that is, people who believe their own doctrine right and everyone else's wrong as a matter of committed assent, rather than overwhelming evidence. So there's no hope of agreement, and only limited opportunity for accountability.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,895
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:36:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 7:36:11 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 5:54:04 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
... forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

Is this where to go for an argument?
https://www.youtube.com...

OK

No it isn't.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:37:33 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:31:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
Unless the original post is framed in a way that invites opposition, forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

All ideas are subject to accountability for their reasoning, Throwback, and in a debate forum, questions, challenges and alternative contentions should be expected. However, I'd agree that the most constructive way to explore an idea is not always a win-or-lose contest with another fixed idea. Sometimes it's better to explore implications and alternatives open-endedly, perhaps in parallel, with comparison and contrast but without prolonged contention.

I think this is an especially useful approach in the Religion forum, since we know that 84% of the world comprises people 'of faith' -- that is, people who believe their own doctrine right and everyone else's wrong as a matter of committed assent, rather than overwhelming evidence. So there's no hope of agreement, and only limited opportunity for accountability.

Well, I don't disagree. I think it's the vitriol we referred to. I could have been more clear.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:38:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:36:57 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 8/10/2016 7:36:11 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 5:54:04 PM, keithprosser wrote:
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
... forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

Is this where to go for an argument?
https://www.youtube.com...

OK

No it isn't.

OK
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2016 8:44:58 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:37:33 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:31:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
Unless the original post is framed in a way that invites opposition, forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

All ideas are subject to accountability for their reasoning, Throwback, and in a debate forum, questions, challenges and alternative contentions should be expected. However, I'd agree that the most constructive way to explore an idea is not always a win-or-lose contest with another fixed idea. Sometimes it's better to explore implications and alternatives open-endedly, perhaps in parallel, with comparison and contrast but without prolonged contention.

I think this is an especially useful approach in the Religion forum, since we know that 84% of the world comprises people 'of faith' -- that is, people who believe their own doctrine right and everyone else's wrong as a matter of committed assent, rather than overwhelming evidence. So there's no hope of agreement, and only limited opportunity for accountability.

Well, I don't disagree. I think it's the vitriol we referred to.

I agree. Religion often sees the aim of not just challenging a position, but seeking to destroy another member's credibility: to over-extend the position that an idea is false, invalid, misguided or evil to the contention that all its supporters are knowingly wicked, endemically stupid or deliberately dishonest. To me that looks like attacking the person through the proxy of an idea, and I cannot see that as other than an expression of hate.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,003
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2016 8:23:40 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/10/2016 8:44:58 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:37:33 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 8/10/2016 8:31:32 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 8/10/2016 1:05:17 PM, Throwback wrote:
Unless the original post is framed in a way that invites opposition, forum posts shouldn't turn into arguments.

All ideas are subject to accountability for their reasoning, Throwback, and in a debate forum, questions, challenges and alternative contentions should be expected. However, I'd agree that the most constructive way to explore an idea is not always a win-or-lose contest with another fixed idea. Sometimes it's better to explore implications and alternatives open-endedly, perhaps in parallel, with comparison and contrast but without prolonged contention.

I think this is an especially useful approach in the Religion forum, since we know that 84% of the world comprises people 'of faith' -- that is, people who believe their own doctrine right and everyone else's wrong as a matter of committed assent, rather than overwhelming evidence. So there's no hope of agreement, and only limited opportunity for accountability.

Well, I don't disagree. I think it's the vitriol we referred to.

I agree. Religion often sees the aim of not just challenging a position, but seeking to destroy another member's credibility: to over-extend the position that an idea is false, invalid, misguided or evil to the contention that all its supporters are knowingly wicked, endemically stupid or deliberately dishonest. To me that looks like attacking the person through the proxy of an idea, and I cannot see that as other than an expression of hate.

Too many haters here. Some are senile too.