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?

#191kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 9:46:34 PM(edited)
Ok, we've been around the block enough times. Lets go to the big picture.

Should be that if you want to keep me from doing something I want to do, you should have to show me that it's wrong, and if you want to make me do something I don't want to do you should have to show me that it's right.

For a certain class of actions, this requires showing my beliefs about that action to be invalid.

In a situation like this, you can't do it on your own. You've admitted this many times. You can't prove this god doesn't exist, and you can't prove I don't have any evidence for him.

That means to prove me wrong, you have to get me to accept the burden of proof and try to demonstrate that my belief is right. If you're the fan of logic and critical thinking that you say you are, then you know I don't have to do that.

Furthermore, had I decided to assume the burden, you and I both know that I could contrive evidence that would be impossible for you to invalidate simply by virtue of you lacking access to it. You'd have no good reason to believe it, but neither would you have grounds to disprove it. But like I said, you can't force me down that road, so I didn't take it.

At this point, you've provided some justifications why you think impinging on my will anyway is a good thing, mostly related to the specific example, but that always boils down to it being permissible to force someone to act as you demand that they do without giving them a reason they accept as to why they should.

And at the end of the day, that just boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong, so just shut it." Which I happen to think is a bad thing to say.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#192Far421Posted 1/30/2013 10:05:44 PM(edited)
kozlo100 posted...
Ok, we've been around the block enough times. Lets go to the big picture.

Should be that if you want to keep me from doing something, you should have to show me that it's wrong, and if you want to make me do something you should have to show me that it's right.

For a certain class of actions, this requires showing the belief that it's based on to be invalid.

In a situation like this, you can't do it on your own. You've admitted this many times. You can't prove this god doesn't exist, and you can't prove I don't have any evidence for him.

That means to prove me wrong, you have to get me to accept the burden of proof and try to demonstrate that my belief is right. If you're the fan of logic and critical thinking that you say you are, then you know I don't have to do that.

Furthermore, had I decided to assume the burden, you and I both know that I could contrive evidence that would be impossible for you to invalidate simply by virtue of you lacking access to it. You'd have no good reason to believe it, but neither would you have grounds to disprove it. But like I said, you can't force me down that road, so I didn't take it.

At this point, you've provided some justifications why you think impinging on my will anyway is a good thing, mostly related to the specific example, but that always boils down to it being permissible to force someone to act as you demand that they do without giving them a reason they accept as to why they should.

And at the end of the day, that just boils down to "I'm right and you're wrong, so just shut it." Which I happen to think is a bad thing to say.


Actully, I think there has just been a good deal of miscommunication between us. I accept that you can do whatever to your own person so long as it doesn't hurt others, and based on your second to last post, you seem to agree that you can't just go around killing people regardless of your beliefs. What we disagree about is the extent to which a parent gets to be a proxy for his child. My position is in my above post.

Edit: Correction to hilariously messed up sentence.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#193Hustle KongPosted 1/30/2013 9:48:24 PM
Far421 posted...
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.


One wonders at the fact that humans were able to get by for so long on just parental instincts. Thank the gods we have reason machines like you to fix it!
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#194kozlo100Posted 1/30/2013 9:53:29 PM
See, you're still running into that problem though. Even if I am just a steward of the child's rights, that includes the right to a happy afterlife if I believe such a thing is attainable.

You want to invalidate that belief, you fall into those requirements again.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#195Far421Posted 1/30/2013 10:07:42 PM(edited)
kozlo100 posted...
See, you're still running into that problem though. Even if I am just a steward of the child's rights, that includes the right to a happy afterlife if I believe such a thing is attainable.

You want to invalidate that belief, you fall into those requirements again.


Where does your right to act as a proxy/steward for your child come from? It seems to me that any right like that is going to be bound by the same sort of thing that your right to not be murdered comes from. Are you accepting the latter right, and if so, why?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#196kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 10:45:36 AM
Far421 posted...
Where does your right to act as a proxy/steward for your child come from?


Honestly, pre-history. Pre-sentience really. Since before we were human, I take care of my kids and you take care of yours. I suppose it is very like the right not to be murdered, as it is an extension of the biological survival instinct.

You're going to need a really good line of reasoning to supplant something that basic.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#197Far421Posted 1/31/2013 11:11:19 AM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
Where does your right to act as a proxy/steward for your child come from?


Honestly, pre-history. Pre-sentience really. Since before we were human, I take care of my kids and you take care of yours. I suppose it is very like the right not to be murdered, as it is an extension of the biological survival instinct.

You're going to need a really good line of reasoning to supplant something that basic.


Instinct isn't the sort of thing that can birth anything resembling a fair moral system on its own, but reason suggests that if we just kill people we'll have to worry about others killing us. By agreeing to not kill each other we can respect each other's instincts to survive. Children have those instincts, too. Why do you think you get to override them? It doesn't matter that your children can't reason. They still have those instincts, those desires, and unless you can prove that you're right, why do you get to force them to die for your beliefs?
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#198kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 12:25:21 PM
We're getting to very basic morality here, the very foundations.

It is a fact that humans want to live, that desire arises from our basic biology. It is who we are. In the same way it is a fact that a parent wants to take care of their child. It is also a fact that a child cannot take care of itself.

Morality, at least in this regard, is about determining when you shouldn't do a thing that you want to do. So do you have a reason that we should prevent parents from acting on their desire to care for their children, and instead placing that responsibility on some other entity who does not have a biological desire to care for the child?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#199Far421Posted 1/31/2013 12:44:35 PM
kozlo100 posted...
We're getting to very basic morality here, the very foundations.

It is a fact that humans want to live, that desire arises from our basic biology. It is who we are. In the same way it is a fact that a parent wants to take care of their child. It is also a fact that a child cannot take care of itself.

Morality, at least in this regard, is about determining when you shouldn't do a thing that you want to do. So do you have a reason that we should prevent parents from acting on their desire to care for their children, and instead placing that responsibility on some other entity who does not have a biological desire to care for the child?


The reason is that the parent isn't the same person as his child in any sense. Once you realize this, all of your own arguments turn against you. The child wants to live, and logic dictates that we should get together and protect that instinct. The child can't protect it for himself, so we appoint someone to do that for him. If you decide to end the child's life instead, you better have a damn good reason for it and be willing to tell us, or else we will treat it the same as if you had killed some random person and would give us no reason. It does not follow from the fact that he's your child that you get to violate his instinctual desire to which we give everyone a right( even if you can get him to say he wants you to, because he is below the age of reason).
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#200kozlo100Posted 1/31/2013 1:37:56 PM
You're jumping ahead several steps to a specific instance of implementation of parental rights. Remember, we're just talking where the rights come from for right now.

You have an entity that wants to care for the child, who needs caring for. You need to give a reason to prevent that entity from caring for the child.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick