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?

#151OrangeWizardPosted 2/7/2013 1:18:35 PM
From: JonWood007 | #149
If you read Mein kampf and attempt to criticize it, you must believe everything in his book is true.


Reading it and criticizing it is possible, unless you're criticizing the alleged actions that took place in the book, which is still possible, unless you need to cherry-pick to do it.

And all of that applies to the bible, even. You just end up cherry-picking in that situation, because it lays down a wide umbrella over everything that you can't really avoid.

Nothing in Mein Kampf says "Everything in this book is 100% true", or anything.
#152hunter_gohanPosted 2/7/2013 1:20:46 PM
kozlo100 posted...
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.


It completely does though. How would it have reflected on Darwin if he just assumed the ToE was true and absolutely refused to actually demonstrate that or even talk about it with anyone who wouldn't likewise assume that it was true? How would it reflect on a prosecutor who simply assumed the defendant was guilty and whose only actions in court were attempting to force this assumption on others without actually demonstrating it? How would it reflect on a teacher who simply assumed all tests handed in failed without actually going through and grading them?

How would you view a Stalinist who insists all of Stalin's atrocities were actually morally good because he assumes Stalin was the Gardener of Human Happiness and won't actually defend that besides attempting to force you to accept that assumption?
---
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.
#153kozlo100Posted 2/7/2013 1:30:21 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
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.


The ability of anyone to form a tautological definition about anything doesn't reduce all conversation in the way you mention, just conversation about those definitions. You don't have to have those conversations. Also, kind of the defining feature of a tautology is that they are self proving, so asking someone to prove one is a little off the mark.

You're asking the wrong questions here, which is how OW keeps stringing you guys along. You shouldn't be trying to point out flaws in the tautology, there aren't any. What you should be asking is "Does this tautological definition describe anything that actually exists?"
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#154ThuggernautzPosted 2/7/2013 1:34:57 PM
kozlo100 posted...

The ability of anyone to form a tautological definition about anything doesn't reduce all conversation in the way you mention, just conversation about those definitions. You don't have to have those conversations. Also, kind of the defining feature of a tautology is that they are self proving, so asking someone to prove one is a little off the mark.

You're asking the wrong questions here, which is how OW keeps stringing you guys along. You shouldn't be trying to point out flaws in the tautology, there aren't any. What you should be asking is "Does this tautological definition describe anything that actually exists?"


That's kind of what I meant by writing conversation in the singular; was implying the related conversation. And yes, asking for proof of a tautology is off the mark, what I meant was a little closer to the question you listed at the end.

In any case, we are now wildly off topic and I have no compulsion to take another circular OW topic up to 500.
#155kozlo100Posted 2/7/2013 1:42:42 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
How would you view a Stalinist who insists all of Stalin's atrocities were actually morally good because he assumes Stalin was the Gardener of Human Happiness and won't actually defend that besides attempting to force you to accept that assumption?


I would view them as someone who is not particularly useful to talk to about Stalin. I certainly would not take their refusal to converse with me as evidence of anything at all about Stalin himself.

The trick of it is that you cannot judge someone's position if you do not know it. You cannot know their position if they don't tell it to you.

Your reference to Darwin provides an insight to another aspect of the situation. Darwin was trying to convince people that the theory of evolution was true. He'd have had a hard time doing that if he was unwilling to discuss his position and support.

The difference is OW is not trying to convince you that his god exists. Way back to the beginning of the 1000 post thread, he made a simple point that is tautologically true. He's not trying to convince you of anything but that point, so there's no real reason for him to talk about anything else.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#156hunter_gohanPosted 2/7/2013 2:36:06 PM(edited)
kozlo100 posted...
I would view them as someone who is not particularly useful to talk to about Stalin. I certainly would not take their refusal to converse with me as evidence of anything at all about Stalin himself.


And after the Nth Stalinist brings the exact same fallacious argument it's time to start thinking "maybe they don't actually have anything else they could use to reach or demonstrate this conclusion".

When they won't even attempt to demonstrate their point without assuming it and attempting to force that assumption on others, why exactly should I think they actually do have a way to reach that conclusion besides assuming it and they're just keeping it hidden, for some reason?

The trick of it is that you cannot judge someone's position if you do not know it. You cannot know their position if they don't tell it to you.


Multiple people have told me though. They hold that position either because they simply assume it, because they circularly define 'good' as 'anything my god does', or because they employ special pleading and say he has the right to do whatever he wants with us because he created us but other beings who created sapient people don't have that right. When someone keeps repeating "2+2=22 because I assume it does" without trying to actually demonstrate it I don't think anyone would be at fault for eventually reaching the conclusion that they have nothing else save that assumption to back them up.

The difference is OW is not trying to convince you that his god exists.


That he exists isn't the debate. That's irrelevant. I can have a debate on who would win in a fight Hitler or Superman just fine. The person coming in and simply saying "I assume Hitler would win and you must accept this assumption" does nothing to actually further the debate. Especially when he's shown the comic where Superman fought twin Hitlers and gunned them down, and he just says something like "Well since Hitler would beat Superman, we can safely assume he didn't actually lose that battle we just don't know why."

Way back to the beginning of the 1000 post thread, he made a simple point that is tautologically true. He's not trying to convince you of anything but that point, so there's no real reason for him to talk about anything else.


And these tautologies are as useful as me saying "If I'm never wrong, then I'm never wrong."; meanwhile, people keep showing examples of where I was wrong and I simply repeat my tautology and wonder why no one who didn't already agree with me is accepting that I'm never wrong.
---
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.
#157kozlo100Posted 2/7/2013 2:38:53 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
And after the Nth Stalinist brings the exact same fallacious argument...


That's the part you're not getting. They're not bringing an argument. They're refusing to respond to yours. Why you'd keep bugging Stalinists that don't want to talk to you is beyond me.

And remember, the only think OW is trying to 'force' on you here is the notion that a god defined as perfect is above reproach.

And these tautologies are as useful as me saying "If I'm never wrong, then I'm never wrong."


Then why do you keep talking about them? You've entered a debate with a person on a subject that you definitively cannot win, and then get frustrated that your opponent won't shift to a debate that you can win. What else did you expect to happen?

This is why I love having OW on the board. He teaches you about these pitfalls by trapping you in them. He's very good at it, so your only way out is to not step in them in the first place.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#158fudrickPosted 2/7/2013 2:43:17 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Then why do you keep talking about them? You've entered a debate with a person on a subject that you definitively cannot win, and then get frustrated that your opponent won't shift to a debate that you can win. What else did you expect to happen?

This is why I love having OW on the board. He teaches you about these pitfalls by trapping you in them. He's very good at it, so your only way out is to not step in them in the first place.


I feel exactly the same
---
Best FCs:
GH1: Decontrol | GH2: Jordan, Hangar 18 | GH80s: Because It's Midnite | GH3: One, Soothsayer | RB2: I Ain't Superstitious
#159hunter_gohanPosted 2/7/2013 3:03:57 PM
kozlo100 posted...
That's the part you're not getting. They're not bringing an argument. They're refusing to respond to yours. Why you'd keep bugging Stalinists that don't want to talk to you is beyond me.


Because they keep objecting to me calling Stalin evil and saying that I'm wrong because they assume he isn't. They very much are bringing an argument. That thread would have never been created if they weren't. If they don't want to bring an argument, then stay out of those morality debates. If you aren't interested in a morality debate about being X then don't propagate 1000 post threads saying you can't call him evil because you assume he isn't. Don't make those threads necessary in the first place by responding to people calling being X evil with the fact that you assume he's good. I've hit this stonewall a few times when people ask why i consider YHWH to be evil which only leads to them assuming that he is good.

And remember, the only think OW is trying to 'force' on you here is the notion that a god defined as perfect is above reproach.


And I couldn't care less about useless tautologies or thinking that simply because someone claimed something it means that is true.

Then why do you keep talking about them? You've entered a debate with a person on a subject that you definitively cannot win, and then get frustrated that your opponent won't shift to a debate that you can win. What else did you expect to happen?


Once I start seriously replying to people claiming something I said is wrong with "I assume I'm never wrong" and not even attempting to demonstrate why I think it is they who are in fact wrong or concede that I was, once I start doing this so damn much in other threads that someone is compelled to start a thread specifically to address me doing this, then you can come back and say this. Absolutely no one on our side is attempting to enter into a debate against "If X is morally good, then X is morally good.". That thread wasn't the first time this popped up. It was created because these theists kept objecting to people disagreeing with YHWH's morality with the fact that they assume he's morally perfect.
---
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.
#160JonWood007(Topic Creator)Posted 2/7/2013 3:04:17 PM
Since this is turning into part 4 of that dead horse, I'm closing this topic.
---
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