Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Hey, now it will let me post! Sometimes it doesn't.
Just call me the cheerleader...
WOWWWW! Zakath's 5th post was by far by far his best post yet, imvho. I see a couple comebacks available, but I don't see a LOT of others. I can NOT WAIT to see Bob Enyart's response! These 48 hour waits can be real killers!
Just call me the cheerleader...
WOWWWW! Zakath's 5th post was by far by far his best post yet, imvho. I see a couple comebacks available, but I don't see a LOT of others. I can NOT WAIT to see Bob Enyart's response! These 48 hour waits can be real killers!
novice
Who is the stooge now?
Doesn't Zakath claim he is a former pastor?
Why would Zakath lob Bob such a softball in his "Argument from Nonbelief"???
And furthermore... if Zakath really were a pastor (and I certainly do not doubt he was) wouldn't he know the answer Bob is going to give???
It was a good post by Zakath in that I think he put more effort into this one... but I think Bob is going to nail that softball out of the park!
Why would Zakath lob Bob such a softball in his "Argument from Nonbelief"???
And furthermore... if Zakath really were a pastor (and I certainly do not doubt he was) wouldn't he know the answer Bob is going to give???
It was a good post by Zakath in that I think he put more effort into this one... but I think Bob is going to nail that softball out of the park!
One Eyed Jack
New member
I was wondering about that myself. It almost sounds like a joke. I can't help but wonder if he kept a straight face while he was typing it.
Well, considdering Zakath was a pastor, he has probably given this arguement some thought. Since he knows the "standard" answer that Bob might give him (I think Zakath is counting on it) he probably has a pretty nasty response waiting for Bob should he give Zakath the answer Zakath is expecting.
Now, the arguement from Non-Belief doesn't seem that plausible to me at the moment, but Zakath didn't post it simply to have Bob refute it. Zakath has a clear answer in his head which he'll give once Bob posted his reply.
The last few posts have all gone Zakath's way, and I can hardly wait what Bob's counterpoint is going to be. Bob's refusal to state his "Absolute Moral Values/Laws/Rules" is a weakness on his part. He knows that, whatever he presents as absolute, Zakath will not have a hard time trying to counter them with circumstances in which Bob's supposedly "Absolute values" will fail. This will disprove Bob's arguement rather nicely, and Bob knows this will happen, hence his refusal to state them.
One Eyed Jack
New member
You've never been very popular with the ladies, have you? You might as well get used to it, because no woman in her right mind would want anything to do with you after hearing that. Rape is always wrong.
One Eyed Jack
New member
Rape is wrong regardless of what country it happens in, or who does it.
I meant it ironically
Since United States advocates human rights, and base even military and economic actions on that, against other nations, they sometimes look in another direction, as their prime interests are at state.
That is what I meant to say.
You don't think that I could mean that any rape committed by anyone under any circumstance in any country is justifyable.
Even raping animals....!
And the "hypothetical rape to save the human race" argument, is not something of consideration, since a lot of actual rapes occur, which ARE worth considering, so why would we bother hypothetical crimes that are not even committed then?
One Eyed Jack
New member
Maybe you should ask shima and Zakath that, since they're the ones using that argument.
A thorough pummeling
A thorough pummeling
I'm glad Zakath is milking the "God of the Gaps" argument. Hopefully Bob will address it thoroughly in the next post.
Once that argument is amply refuted, Zakath has next to nothing in this debate.
HANG IN THERE ZAKATH.
<--- Better put some ice on that shiner.
Hope you last all ten rounds. You better double up on that blackberry juice. :freak: <--- Zakath's swollen eye from four rounds of pummeling.
A thorough pummeling
I'm glad Zakath is milking the "God of the Gaps" argument. Hopefully Bob will address it thoroughly in the next post.
Once that argument is amply refuted, Zakath has next to nothing in this debate.
HANG IN THERE ZAKATH.
<--- Better put some ice on that shiner.Hope you last all ten rounds. You better double up on that blackberry juice. :freak: <--- Zakath's swollen eye from four rounds of pummeling.
Because if one is going to propose a set of moral absolutes, then they must be absolute in every conceiveble circumstance. The "save the world" scenario demonstrates a circumstance where the morality of rape becomes relative, because you must weigh it against the extinction of the species. Many, including me, would say it is acceptable to rape in this one, extreme circumstance. Therefore it's not a moral absolute, despite the fact that Bob has asserted that it is. It demonstrates Bob's short-sightedness. It may be absolute for him, but not for everyone.
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
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
LightSon
New member
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. :doh:
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.
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....
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....
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:
- Status