Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

BlueChild

New member
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!
 

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!
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by novice
Doesn't Zakath claim he is a former pastor?

Why would Zakath lob Bob such a softball in his "Argument from Nonbelief"???

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.
 

shima

New member
OYJ: 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.
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by shima
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.
I think Bob did do this. He basically said that rape is always wrong. He said that it is better for the entire human race to become extinct than for a person to be raped. This seems pretty clear to me.

--ZK
 

shima

New member
He said that it is better for the entire human race to become extinct than for a person to be raped.

Good. Now, can he prove that it is always wrong? If he cannot, then it is just Bob's opinion against mine, because I think its not wrong to rape a woman to save the human race.
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by shima
Good. Now, can he prove that it is always wrong? If he cannot, then it is just Bob's opinion against mine, because I think its not wrong to rape a woman to save the human race.

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.
 

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Rape is always wrong.


Unless of course it happens in a country (Saudi Arabia) that is allied with the United Stated, and was willing to support the war against Iraq.

Then it is another question...
 

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
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
Originally posted by heusdens
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?

Maybe you should ask shima and Zakath that, since they're the ones using that argument.
 

heusdens

New member
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Maybe you should ask shima and Zakath that, since they're the ones using that argument.

You are right. The argument is in fact ridiculous, as used by Zakath and shima.

(well at least we do agree on "something"!)
 

Ash1

New member
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. :eek: <--- 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.
 

Michael12

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by heusdens
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?
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.
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
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
 

LightSon

New member
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. :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.
 

claire

BANNED
Banned
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....
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
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. :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.

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
 

heusdens

New member
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:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top