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

Do you Christians here think children should read the bible?

#161Far421Posted 1/30/2013 10:38:20 AM(edited)
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...

People who do not accept reason are obviously not worth trying to reason with, and people who have reasons but won't explain themselves are hypocrites to expect explanations from others.


The difference that you're still not seeing is that I'm not telling you to do anything. Go ahead and give the medicine to your kid if you want to. I'm just not giving it to mine. It is only hypocritical of me if I try to tell you what to do, and then don't explain why.


You are telling me to do something. You're telling me not to interfere with what you choose for your kid. That's a thing and you're telling me not to do it, which is to say that "not that" is a thing you are telling me to do.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#162kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 10:53:08 AM
Far421 posted...
You are telling me to do something. You're telling me not to interfere with what you choose for your kid. That's a thing and you're telling me not to do it, which is to say that "not that" is a thing you are telling me to do.


No, you're misunderstanding. I'm simply not listening to you when you try to interfere with what I choose for my kid. That and explaining the implications if you choose to impose your will on me by force of government.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#163kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 10:57:51 AM
Far421 posted...
I deferred to evidence that medicine works and faith healing does not.


I'm not disputing that medicine works, or that faith healing does not. My choice is based on the medicine damning my child to hell. You have not addressed that, except to say that I have no evidence of it, which I told you was wrong.

I then explained the reason why you shouldn't live your life worrying about things that are not supported by evidence from a practical perspective. You're not going to be able to support any course of action or inaction better than that, including the view that parents should be able to do whatever they think is right to their children.


Irrelevant, as mentioned above, I have evidence that I feel is compelling on the issue.

If the government comes knocking on my door I'll share these reasons with them in detail. Either they can accept reason and go away or reject it and do their thing, but they are in the wrong from any fair and practical perspective if they do the latter.


So the government is in the wrong for taking action after failing to convince you of the correctness of their position? Are we in agreement that they shouldn't do that?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#164Far421Posted 1/30/2013 11:09:22 AM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...

If the government comes knocking on my door I'll share these reasons with them in detail. Either they can accept reason and go away or reject it and do their thing, but they are in the wrong from any fair and practical perspective if they do the latter.


So the government is in the wrong for taking action after failing to convince you of the correctness of their position? Are we in agreement that they shouldn't do that?


Not necessarily. It depends whether my "reason" is actually logically valid or not. If I have no valid reason to believe the kid will go to hell (or whatever) then the government isn't wrong to not let my stubborn refusal to see reason prevent them from helping the child. When it comes to the child's rights, the parents' personal beliefs aren't terribly relevant to me unless they actually are supported by reason and evidence.

And whatever your intent, a couple of times you did say things along the line of "if you can't convince me, leave me alone to tend to my child." If you're not saying that I'm wrong to forcibly interfere in the circumstances I have described, I'm not sure I even care to continue. Either I'm right, I'm wrong, or there is no "morally correct" action in this case. I'm fine with doing things that are not wrong, even if they are also not right.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#165kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 11:21:24 AM
Far421 posted...
It depends whether my "reason" is actually logically valid or not. If I have no valid reason to believe the kid will go to hell (or whatever) then the government isn't wrong to not let my stubborn refusal to see reason prevent them from helping the child. When it comes to the child's rights, the parents' personal beliefs aren't terribly relevant to me unless they actually are supported by reason and evidence.


Explain to me how what you are saying here is fundamentally different from "It depends on whether or not the government agrees with me." You are asserting that the government should use the kinds of arguments and reasoning that you find most valid.

You are also saying that the government is in the wrong if they do not use the methods you find most valid.

You only seem to be having a hard time imagining how to apply these conclusions to a government that agrees with you acting upon a person who does not.

I'm fine with doing things that are not wrong, even if they are also not right.

Are you also fine with things that are not right being done to you? Again, this is all about what you think should happen when the tables are turned against you.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#166kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 11:38:10 AM
I'll tell you what, let's refocus the issue here, and you tell me where you think I've gone off the rails.

I'm doing a thing that you think I should not do.
In commanding me not to do that thing, you assume the burden of proof.*
If you cannot meet that burden, I'm not going to listen to you.
If you force me to listen to you, you are necessarily implying that it is right for people to force their will on others without meeting the burden of proof that what they command is right.
It then follows that it is right for me to force you to accept any command I care to give without meeting the burden of proof in explaining why what I command is right.

*for this purpose 'proof' need only be a compelling argument, not 100% proof.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#167Far421Posted 1/30/2013 11:41:19 AM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
It depends whether my "reason" is actually logically valid or not. If I have no valid reason to believe the kid will go to hell (or whatever) then the government isn't wrong to not let my stubborn refusal to see reason prevent them from helping the child. When it comes to the child's rights, the parents' personal beliefs aren't terribly relevant to me unless they actually are supported by reason and evidence.


Explain to me how what you are saying here is fundamentally different from "It depends on whether or not the government agrees with me." You are asserting that the government should use the kinds of arguments and reasoning that you find most valid.

You are also saying that the government is in the wrong if they do not use the methods you find most valid.

You only seem to be having a hard time imagining how to apply these conclusions to a government that agrees with you acting upon a person who does not.

I'm fine with doing things that are not wrong, even if they are also not right.

Are you also fine with things that are not right being done to you? Again, this is all about what you think should happen when the tables are turned against you.


To the second question, emotionally I may be displeased with having some things that are right done to me. But logically, I accept that things that are and aren't right may be done to me as long as they aren't wrong. However, this bit all was to be about which perspectives you might take. I believe that morality is based in logic, so I have no arbitrariness to worry about, or at least none that isn't easy to foresee.

To your first point, what is and isn't logical is not subjective. Logic depends on assumptions, but the ones I'm making are just the really basic ones we agreed upon in addition to "let's not let ourselves be paralyzed" (it's actually worse than paralysis, because inaction could be damning, too). So the methods I find valid are exactly the ones that make this discussion potentially worthwhile, for it is useless to say "I have no idea which actions will doom me forever and no way of finding out." You don't seem to like this sort of answer very much, but never offer any alternatives ever no matter what and feel like you have no obligation to do so. Indeed you have none, but this whole discussion is just a big waste of time if all we end up saying is "we know nothing," and the assumptions I make are exactly the sort that avoid that kind of ending without bringing extra baggage.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#168Far421Posted 1/30/2013 11:43:19 AM
kozlo100 posted...
I'll tell you what, let's refocus the issue here, and you tell me where you think I've gone off the rails.

I'm doing a thing that you think I should not do.
In commanding me not to do that thing, you assume the burden of proof.*
If you cannot meet that burden, I'm not going to listen to you.
If you force me to listen to you, you are necessarily implying that it is right for people to force their will on others without meeting the burden of proof that what they command is right.
It then follows that it is right for me to force you to accept any command I care to give without meeting the burden of proof in explaining why what I command is right.

*for this purpose 'proof' need only be a compelling argument, not 100% proof.


I can meet the burden and have, to the extent you asked for. Whether or not you understand that I've met the burden of proof is irrelevant to whether I have.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#169kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 11:58:35 AM
Far421 posted...
I can meet the burden and have, to the extent you asked for.


Then do it. I don't think you can. You haven't yet.

For the record, what I'm looking for is a compelling argument that this medicine won't send my kid to hell.

Note that trying to shift the burden of proof to me is not a compelling argument. It is generally considered to be a fallacy to do so.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#170Far421Posted 1/30/2013 12:16:19 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
I can meet the burden and have, to the extent you asked for.


Then do it. I don't think you can. You haven't yet.

For the record, what I'm looking for is a compelling argument that this medicine won't send my kid to hell.

Note that trying to shift the burden of proof to me is not a compelling argument. It is generally considered to be a fallacy to do so.


I have provided a practical argument that you shouldn't act on the possibility that giving your child medicine will send him to hell without evidence. Nothing is so compelling as reality itself, which forces you to either act or be inactive whether you feel ready or not. For any action or inaction X there can be conceived of a god that damns you for X. However, at this time we have no evidence for any of those gods. Maybe we'll get some later, but we have none now; if I'm wrong, give it to me, and it will either logically be evidence given our assumptions or not. This is objective. However, in the absence of evidence, there is no reason to favor the god who damns you for X over that who damns you for (not X). Nonethless, reality forces you to choose X or (not X). Therefore you must choose one, and disregard some possible hell.

I agree that this is not a disproof of any particular god, but frankly you're not going to get a disproof of all gods who damn you for any particular X anyway. This is a proof concerning how you should actually live, and it does rely on the objectivie correctness of logic and evidence, which we agreed to accept.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292