User Tag List

Page 6 of 52 FirstFirst ... 345678916 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 770

Thread: Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

  1. #76
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Regarding the rape thing:

    What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.

    But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?

    --ZK

  2. #77
    Old Timer LightSon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    490
    Thanks
    28
    Thanked 18 Times in 14 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    5990
    Originally posted by ZroKewl
    Regarding the rape thing:

    What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.

    But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?

    --ZK
    This is a rather tortured hypothetic.

    Let me see if I understand this. If I argue that killing someone in self defense is justified, then you are asserting a similar rationale that raping someone in self defense is justified.

    That does not follow. Sorry. It is one thing to defend yourself; it is another thing to use such defense as a pretext to have your perverted jollies.
    That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world.
    Philippians 2:15

  3. #78
    BANNED claire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    We are getting off the track here....Michael's posited a hypothetical situation in which the world would end if man couldn't repopulate it.....making the "moral absolutes" proffered by Bob not absolute in the sense that he was arguing....

    It has turned from that into a "which crime is better" scenario, and that isn't what it was intended to do....

    I personally don't think raping a woman to repopulate the world, even in a "save the world" scenario would be justified...if God wasn't ready for the world to end, then he would intervene without asking man to "sin" to accomplish it....which, of course, makes Michael's point that "moral absolutes" are relative, because as he said an absolute MUST be an absolute in any given scenario...which means that differing with that opinion raises a question, which removes the absolute from the hypothesis....

  4. #79
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by LightSon
    This is a rather tortured hypothetic.

    Let me see if I understand this. If I argue that killing someone in self defense is justified, then you are asserting a similar rationale that raping someone in self defense is justified.

    That does not follow. Sorry. It is one thing to defend yourself; it is another thing to use such defense as a pretext to have your perverted jollies.
    Bob said that if the only way to save all of humanity was to rape someone, then you should not do it. From that hypothetical, it should also not be allowed to kill someone that was about to harm you and/or your family.

    --ZK

  5. #80
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    199
    Originally posted by ZroKewl
    Regarding the rape thing:

    What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.

    But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?

    I don't think it's worth arguing about a HYPOTETICAL CRIME UNDER HYPOTETICAL CIRCUMSTANCES which has not even be committed!

    What is worth arguing about is about the ca. hundreds of thousands of women that get raped each day!

    Focus your morals on the REAL CRIMES, not the hypothetical ones.
    Last edited by heusdens; July 8th, 2003 at 09:56 AM.

  6. #81
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by heusdens
    I don't think it's worth arguing about a HYPOTETICAL CRIME UNDER HYPOTETICAL CIRCUMSTANCES which has not even be committed is worth arguing about!
    I (and others apparantly) do.

    --ZK

  7. #82
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by claire
    I personally don't think raping a woman to repopulate the world, even in a "save the world" scenario would be justified...if God wasn't ready for the world to end, then he would intervene without asking man to "sin" to accomplish it....
    What about raping a man? I assume you mean raping anyone, right? Either way, if you hold this view, then how can you justify killing someone in self defense? Couldn't you also say that if God wasn't ready for you to die then he would intervene? Or for that matter, why do anything at all... because if God wanted it any differently he could intervene and make it thus.

    --ZK

  8. #83
    BANNED claire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by ZroKewl
    What about raping a man? I assume you mean raping anyone, right? Either way, if you hold this view, then how can you justify killing someone in self defense? Couldn't you also say that if God wasn't ready for you to die then he would intervene? Or for that matter, why do anything at all... because if God wanted it any differently he could intervene and make it thus.

    --ZK
    Because I agree with Michael that there are no moral absolutes. If I was forced to defend a loved one from a heinous crime I would do it without hesitation, and I would not consider myself a "sinner" to do so. And if the person lived and then was sentenced to death I would have no problem with it.

    I give to God what is God's....as as I am required to do by my faith...and I give to Caesar what is Caesar's, as Jesus taught me....

    Absolutely, if God is not ready for me to die, then I won't...I will die when I have accomplished my purpose and not one second before....but God is not a micromanager....he doesn't intervene "arbiitrarily" in our day to day lives for insignificant purposes or results...his view is grander, and bigger....than any one of us...although we each make up an integral part of it....

  9. #84
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by claire
    If I was forced to defend a loved one from a heinous crime I would do it without hesitation, and I would not consider myself a "sinner" to do so. And if the person lived and then was sentenced to death I would have no problem with it.
    So, if a loved one was about to be killed and the only way to stop it was to rape the guy about to kill them, would you do it? If not, then you think raping someone is worse than killing them? Why?

    --ZK

  10. #85
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by heusdens
    I don't think it's worth arguing about a HYPOTETICAL CRIME UNDER HYPOTETICAL CIRCUMSTANCES which has not even be committed!

    What is worth arguing about is about the ca. hundreds of thousands of women that get raped each day!

    Focus your morals on the REAL CRIMES, not the hypothetical ones.
    Thinking such as this is one (of several) reasons there are always loopholes in laws. I submit that the EXACT opposite is true. That it is imperative that we attempt to hypothesize every conceiveble way in which a law (or judgement) may be used.

    Back to topic...Unless you can prove that the "save the world" scenario can never happen, then it must be considered when defining absolutes. An absolute moral would be one that can never, under any possible circumstance, be interpreted otherwise.

    Now, I'll head off the coming arguement that I think ZK is already trying to defend against. Frankly, I am disappointed in the theists reading this thread that failed to realize what I am about to say.

    Were I a theist, my response to the scenario would be something like this....

    Despite the fact that raping a woman under these dire circumstances might be a reasonable thing to do in order to assure continuation of the species, it doen't necessarily follow that it isn't still a "bad" thing to do. One would simply be willfully carrying out a "bad" act. In other words, that fact that some may consider it necessary, doesn't change the fact that it is still "bad".

    Never let it be said that I don't occasionally put on the hat of a theist
    Last edited by Michael12; July 8th, 2003 at 04:39 PM.

  11. #86
    BANNED claire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    12
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by Michael12

    Now, I'll head off the coming arguement that I think ZK is already trying to defend against. Frankly, I am disappointed in the theists reading this thread that failed to realize what I am about to say.

    Were I a theist, my response to the scenario would be something like this....

    Despite the fact that raping a woman under these dire circumstances might be a reasonable thing to do in order to assure continuation of the species, it doen't necessarily follow that it isn't still a "bad" thing to do. One would simply be willfully carrying out a "bad" act. In other words, that fact that some may consider it necessary, doesn't change the fact that it is still "bad".

    Never let it be said that I don't occasionally put on the hat of a theist
    Raping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do (whatcha do is reason with them and get them to AGREE to procreate..LOL)....however, I essentially made your argument when I said I would willfully shoot an intruder in my home and kill them, with every convinction that while it was a bad act it was necessary...so I guess we just differ on the definition of "reasonable and necessary"

  12. #87
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    108
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by claire
    I essentially made your argument when I said I would willfully shoot an intruder in my home and kill them, with every convinction that while it was a bad act it was necessary...so I guess we just differ on the definition of "reasonable and necessary"
    I think this sums up a lot. I think the act would be both reasonable and necessary. And in my world, something that is reasonable and necessary is good (maybe not always, but at least almost always).

    --ZK

  13. #88
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    389
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    It seems to me that the atheists place "conditions" on the absolute wrong, "rape". Then claim that rape is not absolutely wrong, because it depends upon the "conditions". This seems to me to be the very definition of circular reasoning. There comes a time when one must admit that they are guilty of one, and innocent of the other. Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong. Either way that you go there has to be an absolute standard in there somewhere.

  14. #89
    Trainee
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Mmmmmm... claire ..... Nice pic.

  15. #90
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    31
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Originally posted by jeremiah
    It seems to me that the atheists place "conditions" on the absolute wrong, "rape". Then claim that rape is not absolutely wrong, because it depends upon the "conditions". This seems to me to be the very definition of circular reasoning. There comes a time when one must admit that they are guilty of one, and innocent of the other. Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong. Either way that you go there has to be an absolute standard in there somewhere.
    I don't "place conditions" on anything. The fact is, these circumstances can happen, regardless of my feelings towards them. If you are so sure that there are absolute moral standards, then you shouldn't be concerned with any "conditions" no matter where they may arise from, as long as they are possible.
    It seems to me that the atheists place "conditions" on the absolute wrong, "rape". Then claim that rape is not absolutely wrong, because it depends upon the "conditions". This seems to me to be the very definition of circular reasoning.
    It is NOT the "very definition of circular reasoning". It is the defintion of "relativity".

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us