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?

#181kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 1:51:44 PM(edited)
No, no. No specific qualifiers, that's just back to 'governments that agree with me' versus those that don't.

Do you have to meet the burden of proof to force me to do as you say or don't you?

And yes, I'm very well aware that our current government agrees with you and does not always feel it needs to meet the burden of proof to act. We're not talking about what is, but what we think ought to be.

Though in point of fact I cannot be compelled to testify. The fifth amendment is a thing.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#182Far421Posted 1/30/2013 2:11:26 PM
kozlo100 posted...
No, no. No specific qualifiers, that's just back to 'governments that agree with me' versus those that don't.

Do you have to meet the burden of proof to force me to do as you say or don't you?

And yes, I'm very well aware that our current government agrees with you and does not always feel it needs to meet the burden of proof to act. We're not talking about what is, but what we think ought to be.

Though in point of fact I cannot be compelled to testify. The fifth amendment is a thing.


Nope. It isn't. We agreed to use logic, and this is where logic is taking us. If you're refusing to share evidence when the consequence is that your child even might end up damned for it, then either you lack the evidence or don't care enough about the child to talk about it. We have discussed the former, and a parent in the latter case is unfit to care for that child anyway.

And I'm no legal expert, but if we don't charge the parents with anything, but rather just deem them unfit to raise children, at least in that situation, I would guess we could make them testify, or at least use their refusal as part of our evidence. I could be wrong about that, though.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#183kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 2:21:34 PM
Far421 posted...
If you're refusing to share evidence when the consequence is that your child even might end up damned for it, then either you lack the evidence or don't care enough about the child to talk about it.


You're assuming the conclusion, that's not logical. The question at hand is whether or not you should be able to force me to do something without meeting the burden of proof.

The only way my child will be damned is if you force me to act without meeting the burden of proof. If you agree that I should not be able to force you to act without meeting the burden of proof, then consistency demands you act the same way towards me, and my child will not be damned.

And I'm no legal expert, but if we don't charge the parents with anything, but rather just deem them unfit to raise children, at least in that situation, I would guess we could make them testify, or at least use their refusal as part of our evidence. I could be wrong about that, though.


Deeming a parent unfit is charging them with something, and the whole point of the 5th amendment is that you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, and thus pleading the 5th cannot be used as evidence of your guilt. But that's neither here nor there in terms of our current discussion. Like I said, we're not talking about what is.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#184Far421Posted 1/30/2013 6:59:57 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
If you're refusing to share evidence when the consequence is that your child even might end up damned for it, then either you lack the evidence or don't care enough about the child to talk about it.


You're assuming the conclusion, that's not logical. The question at hand is whether or not you should be able to force me to do something without meeting the burden of proof.

The only way my child will be damned is if you force me to act without meeting the burden of proof. If you agree that I should not be able to force you to act without meeting the burden of proof, then consistency demands you act the same way towards me, and my child will not be damned.

And I'm no legal expert, but if we don't charge the parents with anything, but rather just deem them unfit to raise children, at least in that situation, I would guess we could make them testify, or at least use their refusal as part of our evidence. I could be wrong about that, though.


Deeming a parent unfit is charging them with something, and the whole point of the 5th amendment is that you can't be compelled to testify against yourself, and thus pleading the 5th cannot be used as evidence of your guilt. But that's neither here nor there in terms of our current discussion. Like I said, we're not talking about what is.


I have met the burden of proof for the claim I made. I know I have no evidence that you have evidence unless you tell me, so an application of the same logic I used in my day-to-day proof above suffices to conclude that I shouldn't worry about the possibility that you have evidence from a practical standpoint - unless someone proves you have evidence. This is not a shifting of the burden of proof. I'm not saying that I have proven that no god of the sort you refer to exists. I've proven that I can't practically afford to let such possibilities sway me.

As an aside, you do realize that your argument has nothing specific to do with the problem of faith healing, right? Your argument would fly exactly as well with regards to any moral question. (One could argue: You can't prove I won't go to hell for not going on a killing spree? I guess you have to either let me go on one or let me force my will on you in whatever way I want.)
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#185Hustle KongPosted 1/30/2013 7:18:20 PM
I thought you said you were done, Far? I knew you weren't.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#186Far421Posted 1/30/2013 7:23:09 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
I thought you said you were done, Far? I knew you weren't.


Yes, apparently I'm not good enough at respecting my own decisions to stop arguing before I waste a bunch of time debating with someone who is dead set on having no one be able to make any moral conclusions. Oh well.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#187Hustle KongPosted 1/30/2013 7:33:31 PM
You clearly don't know Kozlo, if that's your impression of him.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#188Far421Posted 1/30/2013 7:43:28 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
You clearly don't know Kozlo, if that's your impression of him.


Almost all I know of him is from this topic. The conclusion of his argument and its direct parallels is that (no one can do anything to anyone without going through a big argument about things unsupported by evidence unless everyone happens to agree) unless they're perfectly ok with having anything done to them.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#189kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 7:47:43 PM
Far421 posted...
I've proven that I can't practically afford to let such possibilities sway me.


This is back to you forcing your will on me without proving to me that yours is the correct action. You cannot afford to show me why you are right, so you are just going to force me to act as you wish.

Are you ok with me doing the same to you?

As an aside, you do realize that your argument has nothing specific to do with the problem of faith healing, right?


Well, we were never talking about faith healing, just the refusal of medicine, but yes I am aware my argument has nothing specific to do with that. That's rather the point. We're trying to determine what you should have to do in order to force me to take action. Giving my child medicine is just one action you might try to force on me.

The difference between this and murder is that murder affects other people against their will. Yes, this affects my child, but I am acting as my child's proxy in this matter, as we agreed to at the start of this discussion. If you would like me to give up my ability to act as my child's proxy, you are welcome to try to demonstrate why I should do that.

I've got a little more to say here, but I'm on the clock right now. So I'll just post this and be back for the rest later.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#190Far421Posted 1/30/2013 8:06:26 PM
You're acting as a steward more than an absolute proxy, and I don't think I agreed that parents should necessarily be the ones to hold that role. Your job is to protect your child's rights while he is too young to be able; the rights are yours to preserve, but not to keep. You can't just go and destroy one of them. If you think two of his rights are irrepairably in conflict then you have to appeal to whatever reasoning or "authority" it is that makes it wrong to kill people even if your religion says you should kill them.

To regard parents as an absolute proxy, that is, a proxy in all things, is to allow for all sorts of child abuse.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292