Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

ZroKewl

BANNED
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
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
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
 

claire

BANNED
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....
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
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
 

Michael12

BANNED
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 :D
 
Last edited:

claire

BANNED
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 :D

:D 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" :)
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
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). :D

--ZK
 

jeremiah

BANNED
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.
 

Michael12

BANNED
jeremiah said:
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".
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
Originally posted by jeremiah
Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong.

Failing to procreate can't be equated to murdering the entire human race, even if you are one of the last two people on Earth. Unless, of course, you're the one that killed everybody else.
 

Michael12

BANNED
Originally posted by claire
:D 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" :)
And you just demonstrated my point even further. Of course we differ on things like "reasonable" and "necessary". Without specific circumstances attached, ideas like moral right and wrong, reasonable, and necessary, are ALL relative. From your post:
Raping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do
It would, in fact, be reasonable if one's highest priority were the continuation of the species. I'm not addressing your tongue in cheek "get them to agree to procreate" because the point of the scenario is that they refuse to do so, dispite reasoning and my good looks :D
Further, you have demonstrated the difference between "right" and "good". Two concepts that most people refuse to seperate. Of course it would be "right" to shoot an intruder bent on harming you. But that doesn't make it "good".

The point I am making here is that there are two conceiveble sides to the dilema. That aspect alone makes the terms relative. If it were not relative, then everyone would see things the same way, which is falsifiable by observation. The theist can claim that the atheist views these issues differently due to a mental shortcoming of one sort or another, but the atheist can argue, with equal veracity, that it is the theist that suffers from the mental shortcomming. So who decides who is right? The knee-jerk answer among theists is "God". But the theists can no more prove the existence of their God then atheists can prove His non-existence. So we are back to square one, which means relativity.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
To One Eyed Jack:
I would not consider it murder to not procreate either. I am trying to follow the reasoning of the original hypothetical argument. Some atheists propose that it would not be wrong to rape a woman if that was the only possible way to prevent the death of the human race. The clear implication of this ridiculous argument is that you must rape her, or you would be guilty of something worse. What is worse than rape? Murder, I presume. The deliberate murder of the human race by failure to take the necessary action, Rape. What I am trying to point out is they have applied some absolute standard in this case. The human race must continue and equally as important their is no guilt. They are innocent. The very example they created sets up the issues of standards, rape, death, murder, guilt and innocence. The very things that they are trying to deny and avoid.
The atheist has to say, I raped a woman, there was nothing wrong with that. I am innocent. If I did not rape the woman, then I would be guilty. That conclusion I think is inescapable. Or he must say, I did not rape the woman, because Raping is wrong. However I am guilty of ending or Murdering the human race. This is also inescapable. The very premise of the hypothetical is that either rape is not wrong or The one who does not rape is guilty osf SOMETHING? They have created their own conundrum and paradox.:think: :juggle: :ha:
 
Last edited:

BlueChild

New member
Originally posted by BlueChild 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!

I haven't even finished reading Bob Enyart's post and I had to comment in the grandstands. I think it's kind of neat how Bob Enyart reads the grandstands but rarely posts. He seems to have referred to my pp above, which upon second reading really does make me look like an atheist. Bob, if you're reading this, I'm not an atheist. I am YOUR cheerleader. I just find this debate very exciting. I called myself a cheerleader because all I can do is say whoa and wow, and can't seem to offer much in the way of ideas.

Maybe I don't know my stuff very well, but I am definitely being sharpened and educated by this debate. I'm having a tough time following Bob Enyart's last post. Maybe I'll pull a Bob Enyart, stop whooping in the grandstands and just read and think for a while.
 

Elnora

New member
Originally posted by BlueChild
I haven't even finished reading Bob Enyart's post and I had to comment in the grandstands. I think it's kind of neat how Bob Enyart reads the grandstands but rarely posts. He seems to have referred to my pp above, which upon second reading really does make me look like an atheist. Bob, if you're reading this, I'm not an atheist. I am YOUR cheerleader. I just find this debate very exciting. I called myself a cheerleader because all I can do is say whoa and wow, and can't seem to offer much in the way of ideas.

Maybe I don't know my stuff very well, but I am definitely being sharpened and educated by this debate. I'm having a tough time following Bob Enyart's last post. Maybe I'll pull a Bob Enyart, stop whooping in the grandstands and just read and think for a while.

Wait til you read Bob's latest post!

:thumb:
 

DEVO

Documenting mans devolution
Pastor Enyarts 5th post was allot to digest.

I think it was a fitting 5th post (the halfway mark).

Its halfway through the battle and Bob is reminding Zakath of all the answers he has already given him which I think is fitting.

Tragically I doubt Zakath will REALLY read what Bob is writing... I mean... Zakath will read it..... but will he READ it? Know what I mean?

But in the end I don't really care if Zakath reads it or not, its great stuff! The audience is the real winner!
 

One Eyed Jack

New member
I think Zakath relies way too much on rhetoric. It's as if he forgets he actually has an opponent in this debate. Or an audience.
 

novice

Who is the stooge now?
Lets place some bets, how many time will Bob need to type the sentence....
My evidence to you was not based upon what we don’t know, but upon what we do know
before Zakath acknowledges what he is saying?

Great fifth round post from Bob, I have no doubt that Zakath was not expecting Bob to take this debate so seriously.
 

.Ant

New member
Originally posted by DEVO
The audience is the real winner!
Too right :D

My question to Zakath is: What's with all the obfuscation? What's with repeatedly ignoring Bob's points, and/or misrepresenting them?
 

jeremiah

BANNED
To .Ant
I think that Zakath's methods are turning into the old pastor's sermon "notes", { Point is weak here, POUND pulpit !!!!} If you can't explain your points better, then you simply repeat them over and over, and louder and louder. At this point, I think this is all Zakath is doing. In his 4th post he clarified and summed up his reasoning for disbelieving in God. I understood what he was saying, since I had once been there. In his fifth post he added nothing that was really new. I really liked Bob's response, and in simple debating points, Bob is now way ahead, through his constant and accurate reminder and exposition of Zakath's inadequate and unresponsive answering to important and legitimate questions,
A couple of dodges are allowable to retain focus and control of the debate, so many dodges are a weak debating technique.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top