This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Does creating a sentient being give you the right to mistreat it?

#141ThuggernautzPosted 2/7/2013 12:35:40 PM
Unfounded tautological definitions are reason enough to criticize the subject of the definition.
#142kozlo100Posted 2/7/2013 12:36:46 PM
Tautological definitions aren't actually fallacious, they're just not very useful or interesting to talk about.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#143OrangeWizardPosted 2/7/2013 12:37:23 PM
From: Thuggernautz | #141
Unfounded tautological definitions are reason enough to criticize the subject of the definition.


You keep saying this, but I've yet to see why this is a thing that is true.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#144ThuggernautzPosted 2/7/2013 12:46:35 PM
Because it makes everything logically redundant; anyone can make equally valid claims about anything they want. It reduces all conversation to an infinite number of equally unprovable claims, all which are correct due to the nature of the tautology. I know it's not a fallacy but it leads to complete ambiguity with an infinite number of claims which can't be refuted, nor proven. But if you wish to claim a tautological definition, prove it. Otherwise I will continue to dismiss it as I have, and continue to criticize the subject as a result.
#145DrAlbertBanduraPosted 2/7/2013 12:47:53 PM
From: kozlo100 | #140
Oh, and in reference to OW's track record: I've yet to see him definitively lose a debate around here, including the ones I've had with him.

I've seen him lose plenty enough. He doesn't get a lot of points for soundness or consistency.
---
Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says, "You man the guns. I'll drive."
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9504/bandura.jpg
#146OrangeWizardPosted 2/7/2013 12:52:04 PM
From: Thuggernautz | #144
Because it makes everything logically redundant; anyone can make equally valid claims about anything they want.


I don't see how this follows. Didn't hunter_gohan just try this? Didn't Kzolo decide not to buy into his claims?

From: DrAlbertBandura | #145
I've seen him lose plenty enough. He doesn't get a lot of points for soundness or consistency.


Yes, the newbie argues with the vet and claims that he's seen more than the vet has.

It is to laugh.
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#147hunter_gohanPosted 2/7/2013 12:52:11 PM
kozlo100 posted...
That is correct and consistent. Turns out I don't want to talk about that hunter_gohan very much, so I'm not going to talk to you if that's the only hunter you're interested in discussing.

That's the whole problem here, you insist on talking to someone who isn't talking about what you're talking about, and then acting as if he is. You want to have a discussion where God's perfection is not axiomatic, talk to someone else.


Oh believe me, I'm taking that to heart wrt to OW.

You have to realize though. That when Christians refuse to have a debate about Gods morality without assuming that he's morally perfect, when followers of Stalin refuse to have a debate about Stalin's morality without assuming that he's the Gardener of Human Happiness, and when I refuse to have a debate about something I claimed being wrong or not without assuming that I'm never wrong then all they are doing is basically admitting that is the only way you can come to the conclusion that God is morally perfect, Stalin is the Gardener of Human Happiness, and I'm never wrong without actually coming out and saying those specific words.

If God was actually morally perfect, or if Stalin was actually the Gardener of Human Happiness, or if I was actually never wrong, then you wouldn't need to assume and attempt to force that assumption on others to be able to demonstrate that.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#148OrangeWizardPosted 2/7/2013 12:59:08 PM
From: hunter_gohan | #147
That when Christians refuse to have a debate about Gods morality without assuming that he's morally perfect, when followers of Stalin refuse to have a debate about Stalin's morality without assuming that he's the Gardener of Human Happiness, and when I refuse to have a debate about something I claimed being wrong or not without assuming that I'm never wrong then all they are doing is basically admitting that is the only way you can come to the conclusion that God is morally perfect, Stalin is the Gardener of Human Happiness, and I'm never wrong without actually coming out and saying those specific words.


And when you refuse to have a debate about a domestic cat without assuming the domestic cat means: "a small, usually furry, domesticated, and carnivorous mammal of the Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus" species, then you're doing the same exact thing.

Likewise, when you're talking about Stalin do you mean an 8-foot tall alien with insect wings and a bladed tail? No? Then you're doing the same exact thing.

You're settling upon a definition, and talking in the context of that definition. The reason why I refuse to let you get away with talking about a God that doesn't match my definition is the same way you'd refuse to let me talk about a Stalin that is an 8-foot tall alien.

I'm only keeping consistent with the definitions of words. Is it too much to ask for you to do the same?
---
"Let's make this quick, I'm double-parked." - Two-face
#149JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 2/7/2013 1:12:14 PM
OrangeWizard posted...
From: hunter_gohan | #129
I'm never wrong.


Claiming that something is so does not make it so.

However, in the case of God, this doesn't matter, because you're already past this, and you're already assuming things about God, and that includes his definition.

You can either be "outside" and ask for proof of the claims, or you can be "inside" and be past the point where you need proof for claims, and thus be in a position where you can criticize God's actions. You cannot be both.

With you, I remain outside, because I do not assume that you are never wrong, nor do I agree that "never wrong" an immutable attribute of "hunter_gohan".


We've been over this. Do all of you want to be humiliated again?


If you read Mein kampf and attempt to criticize it, you must believe everything in his book is true.

You can entertain a position and criticize it without accepting it as your own.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#150kozlo100Posted 2/7/2013 1:13:37 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
then all they are doing is basically admitting that is the only way you can come to the conclusion that God is morally perfect,


They're doing nothing of the sort. They just don't want to talk to you about it. Nothing more, and nothing less. There are any number of reasons they might not want to have that discussion with you, and it's inappropriate to assume that the specific reason they have is the one that favors your position most.

It might frustrate you that you cannot find someone to have the discussion you want to have, but that in no way reflects negatively on those who do not want to have that discussion.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick