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?

#251Far421Posted 2/1/2013 1:36:08 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
I don't know that at all.


Yes you do. You know that the only way you can know if I have evidence saying what I'm doing is right is if I show it to you, or admit that I have none. If I've done neither thing, you know there is an important piece of data that you don't have.


Already explained cases where there was no evidence in either direction way above.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#252kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 1:38:29 PM
Also, for the triple post, this doesn't lead to rampant abuse in society because when you ask people why they're doing what they're doing, they'll tell you. Especially a parent will tell you, and then we're not in this situation anymore.

But what we're talking about is the core philosophy of the thing. So we think critically about the hard situations. If you want to assert that people shouldn't be able to tell you what to do without convincing you that it's a good thing, you have to accept that something bad might happen to my kid.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#253Far421Posted 2/1/2013 1:46:23 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Also, for the triple post, this doesn't lead to rampant abuse in society because when you ask people why they're doing what they're doing, they'll tell you. Especially a parent will tell you, and then we're not in this situation anymore.

But what we're talking about is the core philosophy of the thing. So we think critically about the hard situations. If you want to assert that people shouldn't be able to tell you what to do without convincing you that it's a good thing, you have to accept that something bad might happen to my kid.


It would lead to rampant child abuse from predators who would breed children specifically to abuse them, knowing they could get away with it. A predator has every reason to lie.

By the way, I didn't want to assert that across the board, but you at least played for that side.

If I don't convince you, something bad might happen to your kid. If I do convince you, something equally bad might happen to your kid. Therefore, something bad might happen to your kid. Accepted. Let's focus on the threats we actually know something about.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#254kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 1:51:25 PM
Far421 posted...
Parents who can't be assed to save their kids from eternal damnation when the method is obvious are not fulfilling their obligation to care for their child.


That's nitpicking the hypothetical, it doesn't invalidate the point. I could amend medicine god's commands to include that I tell no one what he has told me, but I didn't think I'd have to.

I'll boil it down to simple statements so the case is clear.

Far has evidence that action X will help Kozlo's kid.
Kozlo has greater evidence that action X will harm Kozlo's kid.
Kozlo cannot share his evidence.
Far understands that he cannot know if Kozlo has greater evidence or not.
Should Far act?
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#255kozlo100Posted 2/1/2013 1:52:54 PM
Far421 posted...
Let's focus on the threats we actually know something about.


This is the mistake you keep making. You're insisting on the threats you know something about, not the threats we know something about. We're not in the same position.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#256Far421Posted 2/1/2013 1:54:27 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
Parents who can't be assed to save their kids from eternal damnation when the method is obvious are not fulfilling their obligation to care for their child.


That's nitpicking the hypothetical, it doesn't invalidate the point. I could amend medicine god's commands to include that I tell no one what he has told me, but I didn't think I'd have to.

I'll boil it down to simple statements so the case is clear.

Far has evidence that action X will help Kozlo's kid.
Kozlo has greater evidence that action X will harm Kozlo's kid.
Kozlo cannot share his evidence.
Far understands that he cannot know if Kozlo has greater evidence or not.
Should Far act?


And I already explained why the answer is yes.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#257Far421Posted 2/1/2013 2:03:16 PM
kozlo100 posted...
Far421 posted...
Let's focus on the threats we actually know something about.


This is the mistake you keep making. You're insisting on the threats you know something about, not the threats we know something about. We're not in the same position.


So you tell me about it. As for your super contrived case of a god who won't let you, I'm happy to hinge my argument on my point 1 on the last page. If a being has supernatural attributes, you'll never be able to prove it doesn't have more such since natural evidence won't apply. Therefore it could be omnipotent. Therefore it could trick you. Therefore there is no evidence that what it showed you is right.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292
#258Hustle KongPosted 2/1/2013 2:28:12 PM
Rights are based in logic.


Are they? Are they really? I think that a great deal of our "rights" are based in intuition and feeling. The state consistently uses "logic" in an attempt to curb these rights. Sometimes the population goes along with it because they agree, or are coerced by fear.

What a man will fight to protect is often biological imperative, not "logic".

A totalitarian state seems most like the ideal to you, unless I'm mistaken.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#259Hustle KongPosted 2/1/2013 2:35:08 PM
It just really strikes me as bizarre, the way you seem to view things as "top down", rather than "ground up".

As if the state and logic came first and gave rise to biological creatures to mold, rather than a bunch of animals that existed before, and will exist after the state.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#260Far421Posted 2/1/2013 2:35:28 PM
Hustle Kong posted...
Rights are based in logic.


Are they? Are they really? I think that a great deal of our "rights" are based in intuition and feeling. The state consistently uses "logic" in an attempt to curb these rights. Sometimes the population goes along with it because they agree, or are coerced by fear.

What a man will fight to protect is often biological imperative, not "logic".

A totalitarian state seems most like the ideal to you, unless I'm mistaken.


You are mistaken. And a civilized society uses logic to found rights. If you think someone is going to kill you, the basest intuition is to kill them first, not to band together with a bunch of other people and start creating laws.
---
Pokemon White FC: 4341 2165 1292