Yeah, that's my experience as well. I'm sure you can use the automatic search function faster... provided you have the exact string to search on.
But thinking back even 2 years to what happening on a minor project and how to search for that? When there have been a dozen other projects using those same terms?
And each time you make that claim, you prove my point that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Here you are, again, claiming that you are right that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
I have DEMONSTRATED MYSELF RIGHT, and you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show otherwise in the SLIGHTEST WAY.
Why would I want to "show otherwise"? My point (stated many times) in this thread is that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
And you are the example of that. And you're claiming that you are "right" for claiming such.
As the practices of the consumers have shifted (writing few checks, using less cash, increased credit/debit card use, on-line banking) the methods of fraud have shifted.
Unfortunately, the banks were able to also shift the "responsibility" for the fraud to the consumers.
If someone uses your identity to commit fraud then YOU are responsible for cleaning up the mess.
Even when YOU do not have any tools to PREVENT the fraud or even to be aware of it before the bank/store files a complaint against you.
Prosecutors call it the biggest identity theft bust in US history.
Okay. Sounds good.
Six of the accused are charged with stealing $850,000 worth of computer equipment from a Citigroup building in Long Island City last August. Prosecutors say that a former Citi employee, Steven Oluwo, and a security guard under contract to Citigroup, Angel Quinones, helped with the theft.
How is that "identity theft"? Unless they stole the computers containing personal information? If so, was it encrypted?
"Many of the defendants charged today are accused of going on nationwide shopping sprees, staying at five-star hotels, renting luxury automobiles and private jets, and purchasing tens of thousands of dollars worth of high-end electronics," the Queens DA office said.
Buying stuff I can understand. But renting a jet? That's just stupid! No wonder they were caught.
So you can claim. But I'll stick with my point about how the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). And as I have demonstrated with your posts.
Repeatedly.
You are, quite simply, wrong on your core "point" you persist in repeating without demonstration of how you are, in the face of the reality of the consensus of ethical systems, in any way justified in that opinion.
And yet you've posted many times that you do believe that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances) and you have even provided a circumstance in which you believe that would be the case.
So it would seem that my point has been demonstrated by you, repeatedly.
Would you like me to quote you again, verbatim, on the subject? Here it is:
If Alexander Putin threatened to launch is entire arsenal of nuclear missiles at the U.S. and Europe unless someone on his staff raped a sixteen-year-old he disliked intensely, and it was clear that he both had the means to launch the missiles and the certain intent to do so, and the person had no alternative to avoid the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I would consider the act "not evil".
So it would seem that you made my point for me. You claim that there are circumstances where raping a child is "not evil".
That is the "logic" of the believer. In your own words.
Not evil, even if it would you choose mass-murder instead.
That's the illogical part. One example, of many you've handily demonstrated.
So you can claim. I'll stick to my statement that raping a child is evil.
Lying, because when faced with an argument your meager capabilities for reason can't handle, you take your only recourse.
You might want to look up the definitions of those words because I quote you verbatim.
Idiot, because you couldn't even start to handle even one of the dozens of counterarguments presented to you, and think simply cutting-and-pasting the same sentence dozens of times does anything.
Well it does say a couple of things.
1. That my point here is to show how the "logic" of a believer results in them saying things such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
2. That you have been unable to grasp that point despite it being repeated "dozens of times".
Not really debatable, anyone at all can read the thread and see these facts for the facts they are.
As I have stated (according to you) "dozens of times".
I say that raping a child is "evil". And that it is the "logic" of the believer that results in them claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And your posts are the examples of that.
You say I'm an illogical, lying idiot who will not debate you when you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Okay, I'm the example of you getting demonstrated to be an illogical lying idiot, and of a systematic and accurate counterargument to the "Problem of Evil".
That's nice of you. As I had posted, the "logic" of the believer results in them claiming things such as the raping of a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
I don't think that it is ever "not evil". Therefore, I am "an illogical lying idiot".
Okay, so in summary, you have no counterargument to any of the refutations of your claims I've made, and you are just going to continue to repeat misrepresentations of what I said, and do nothing of what you -must- do to show I'm wrong.
I've quoted you verbatim. If you consider that to be "misrepresentations" then that's up to you.
And, again, this isn't about contradicting your "logic" with facts.
This is about showing the "logic" of the believer which results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Rape in almost all circumstances is evil.
But it is not evil in ALL circumstances according to you. That's the "logic" of the believer.
There could be certain extreme circumstances, such as certainty of death of millions of people, where it would not be evil in order to avoid that.
Hmmmm? Why do you use "could" there? Are you now backing away from your previous, oft-repeated, claim that there is at least one circumstance where it is "not evil"?
That's what I've said, that's my "believer's logic", theology -and- secular philosophy agree with me on this and disagree with you, you have offered absolutely nothing to refute this.
As I've stated before (many times), I'm not here to refute your position.
I'm here to show the "logic" of the believer and how that "logic" results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
My logic is completely correct, my conclusions completely correct, and you are unable to call them into question in any way through legitimate arguments.
As I've stated before (many times), I'm not here to refute your position.
I'm here to show the "logic" of the believer and how that "logic" results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
So, if you feel you want to continue call attention to how my logic, and I, are completely right, feel free, I suppose.
As I have been doing for many, many, many posts in this thread.
Your only other alternative would be to argue, successfully, that I'm wrong.
Why? As I've stated (repeatedly), you aren't the student. You aren't the teacher. You are the EXAMPLE.
My point in this thread is NOT to show you where you are wrong.
My point in this thread is to show the other people reading it how the "logic" of the believer will result in them saying things such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Repeating yourself as to inaccurate claims of what I've said is not an argument, and only that will do anything other than call attention to me being right, and you being wrong.
Well then, that's an advantage for you, isn't it?
Meanwhile, I'll continue on my point which is that the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as raping a child being "not evil" (in certain circumstances). With you being the example of such.
No mention whatsoever of you being irrational -for- your the statement you said, anywhere. Rather, I said you are irrational for entirely other reasons for which, indeed, you are irrational.
Just to be clear for the audience, you agree that you are calling me "irrational".
Now, we just disagree on what, specifically, you are are accusing me of being "irrational" about.
Now, let's take a look at what you had posted, okay?:)
Sure, I'll happily call you irrational for irrational claims and forms of "thinking". On the face of it, you are claiming that, in a scenario where there is no other choice, causing temporary harm to one individual as a necessary action to avoid the death of millions, is, by definition, "evil".
I am saying that raping a child is "evil".
And for that, you claim I am "irrational".:) That's fine. Call me "irrational" for saying that raping a child is "evil". I have no problem with that.
As I've stated before, this thread is about the "logic" of a believer that leads him to claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And you are the example of that believer with that "logic" making that claim.:D
Correct logic, and above that you again just repeat yourself for no apparent useful reason. To say anything of any worth here, you need to show I'm wrong somewhere, not simply repeat yourself in merely repasting words previously said in the thread.
And again, no I do not.
My point in this thread is to show the "logic" of a believer and how that "logic" results in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
You can claim it is "correct logic". You can claim a lot of things.
All you're doing is making my point for me. Again and again. So nice of you to do that.
Okay, at this point I'll need to ask exactly what particular type of lying idiot you are, as this is getting ridiculous, and I'm mystified on why you are persisting.
Again, if I was lying, I'm sure you'd be able to quote me. But you cannot.
As to why I'm "persisting"... I'm doing this to show the "logic" of a believer. As I've said many times in this thread.
Yes, I said it would not be evil under certain extreme circumstances, and I am, and was, correct each time I say it.
Exactly. And, as I have stated before, my point is that the "logic" of a believer is such that they will claim that even raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
It took a bit to get you to actually post that instead of going off on tangents about whether the child being raped was a mammal and something about DNA. But it worked in the end.
A "mammal" is an "animal", idiot, and the exact same dilemma you have before you stands, and is exactly the valid, with either term I or you choose.
I'm not arguing whether mammals are animals.
I'm pointing out that in the discussion of whether a child being raped is "evil", you wanted to clarify whether the child being raped was a mammal.
And then you said that a child being raped was "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And my point was that a believer would think that because of the "logic" of their beliefs.:)
And your posts in this thread are the examples of that "logic".
Sure, I'll happily call you irrational for irrational claims and forms of "thinking".
Just so the people reading this don't get confused, you're calling me irrational for my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Just keeping that clear.:D
And, of course, like always, followed up with your outright misrepresentation/lie that I've said that it is acceptable in the general case.
If it makes you feel better to claim that I've lied, then you'll do so.
But I can quote you exactly and link to your posts where you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And you're still making that claim.:D
Anyone can review the thread themselves to verify I said I consider it "not evil" in that particular extreme scenario, and "evil" in other cases.
Again, as I have stated many times, that is EXACTLY my point in this thread.
Other people can see you (a believer) arguing that raping a child is NOT ALWAYS "evil".
My question is equivalent to asking "Are the individuals animals"?
No. You asked if the child being raped was a MAMMAL. LMAO In a discussion of whether RAPING A CHILD is "evil" you want to know if the child is a mammal.
I'm the example. Great, an example of logical, systematic thought destroying your irrational evasion and empty claims. I'll be that example any time.
Again, you can claim that.
My point was to use this thread to show the "logic" of a believer that causes them to argue that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
As you have continued to do throughout this entire thread.
As I have stated, and with which you agree, or you are irrational.
Great! That's binary thinking at its finest!
I'll stick to the concept that raping a child is "evil". Go ahead, call me irrational for that.:D
You simply pretend it's otherwise, and think merely tossing out the word "evil" means you have anything behind it other than what's completely and only creditable only to my worldview, and contradicts yours, and to which you have nothing to offer, by choice and demonstration of your failure to define or support your usage of the term "evil" in any way whatsoever.
Again, I don't care about you. All you are is an EXAMPLE of the "logic" of the believers.
I don't have to define "evil" in the context of raping a child because the point is that YOUR "logic" requires that it be "not evil" (in certain situations).
What I am doing is illustrating that "logic". Over and over and over.
Every time you demand that I define "evil" in the context of raping a child YOU MAKE MY POINT FOR ME.
It even got to the point where you wanted me to tell you if the child being raped was a MAMMAL or not.
You don't understand. This is NOT about your edification. You are not the student. You are not the teacher. You are the EXAMPLE.
You have to be able to give them rational meaning, that you don't have to try to invalidly and parasitically acquire by simultaneously implying, while denying, the backing and content of your opposition, as the only backing and content on the table.
Nope. Again, the POINT is that YOU want to play semantic games about whether raping a child is "evil" BECAUSE your belief requires that raping a child be "not evil" (your words) in certain situations.
Okay, attempt to bluff that you have some content where you clearly have none, or you'd present it... by... not presenting and instead giving vague "i disapprove" non-arguments.
Ummmm, did you miss the original point?
Let me help you with that:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is God both willing and able to prevent evil? Then how does evil still exist? Is God neither able, nor willing to prevent evil? Then why call him God?
And then you posted:
No, because we can only evaluate something as "good" or "evil" within the context of all of its dependencies--of which the implications of eliminating free will in this case would have to be included when stipulating God can and should do something about it.
There's a very simple counter to that idea - the rape of a child. In what context would it NOT be "evil".
And all of these posts since then have been about you avoiding that very simple question. Because you cannot answer it without proving the original assertion.
Yes, it would be "not evil" under the circumstances. This is probably as clear to you as anyone right while you claim the opposite, but yes, the interests of the millions would outweigh the individual interest here.
You might want to look up the term "lesser of two evils". No, it is NOT "clear" to me that it is "not evil". It is STILL "evil".
Let me break you little dream down a bit. Your position for raping a child being "not evil" (do you think I'm ever going to not quote you on that) requires: 1 - child victim (person A) 2 - secondary actor (person B) (acts under orders of 3) 3 - potential primary actor in a SECONDARY action (person C) 4 - a SECONDARY action (death as opposed to rape) 5 - multiples of 4 (multiple people die)
So what you're trying to do is to claim that raping a child is "not evil"... if you can pile enough other acts onto it that have the POTENTIAL to be worse (even if such acts are NOT performed).
And THAT is the "logic" of the believer.
And yes, not acting to prevent an action is not morally equivalent to committing the action (I assume you don't want to further your demonstrations of personal hypocrisy by having me ask about your personal moral culpability that there are starving children in the world).
First it was mammals. Then it was DNA. Now it is starving children.
Does your "logic" prevent you from staying on topic?
So yes, human act: evil. God: good.
Exactly. The "logic" of the believer.
It isn't the ACT that is "evil". Even when raping a child.
It is who does it. And if God does it, then it is "good".
Finally, though I had previously the impression you were intelligent enough to infer it from context, clearly I have to spell it out:
What is with this "infer"?
Why did you have a PROBLEM in all your other posts with "spell[ing] it out"?
Meanwhile, all the time insisting that I had to clarify whether raping a child involved a mammal and that it had something to do with DNA. And now you're off on a tangent about hamburgers or something.
I am perfectly clear on the issues of moral evil of rape, and can reference a hundred specific ways that my worldview supports condemning it, by direct logical connection.
And yet...
There's a question by virtue of the fact there's a question, and I provided it. I have no idea what you mean by it.
So you are "perfectly clear" about it BUT you don't understand it.
Nice. And exactly what I expected from a believer.
It is you, quite simply, who neither see the moral issues nor can offer anything other than dumbly repeating the exact same empty claim that I do not know what I clearly do, in lieu of you having -anything- to support or back any limitation against the act, by -your own choice-.
And yet it was YOU who insisted there was some confusion over the concept of "evil" in the context of raping a child. So much confusion, in fact, that you wanted me to clarify whether two MAMMALS were involved.
And, sorry, my position on the nature of the argument is absolutely correct, as given, not as a question of religion but as a fact of the entire history of Western philosophy.
So you can claim. But that doesn't seem to be accurate.
Yes, you must define your terms.
Nope. Only when there is a question of what the terms mean in the given context.
Which means that in order for me to HAVE to define "evil" in the context of raping a child you would have to be able to indicate a situation where "evil" did not apply to raping a child or where raping a child was, somehow, "good" or "neutral".
Otherwise it is just you trying to play semantic games.
Your argument is, simply, profoundly full of holes at this point.
So you can claim. Yet you are the one who insisted that I identify whether the child being raped is a mammal or not. And there was something else about DNA later.
If this is the "mind of a believer", so be it, my is objectively correct, yours is a complete fail.
So you can claim. And, again, you are the one who wanted clarification if the child being raped was a mammal or not.
Beyond that, I assume you know continuing will simply demonstrate how bankrupt your argument is,...
Actually, I think the exact opposite. I'm sure that it is demonstrating the "logic" of the believers and the steps they go through when confronted.
Again, YOU were the one who wanted to know if the child being raped was a mammal. Not me.
... and you'll continue to evade presenting your subjective notions of ethics (which, you won't even be able to back on the level of -subjective- notions, I expect, you've failed and evaded so far, and so evidence suggests...) as an objective yardstick by which to measure "God".
And, again, the issue isn't whether I will define "evil" for you.
The issue is whether YOU understand "evil" in the context of raping a child.
And because it contradicts your beliefs, you are claiming that it is my responsibility to define "evil" for you IN THE CONTEXT OF RAPING A CHILD.
Your attempts at semantic games only result in your posts implying that you do NOT understand "evil" in the context of raping a child. And that is the mind of the believer.
If Alexander Putin threatened to launch is entire arsenal of nuclear missiles at the U.S. and Europe unless someone on his staff raped a sixteen-year-old he disliked intensely, and it was clear that he both had the means to launch the missiles and the certain intent to do so, and the person had no alternative to avoid the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I would consider the act "not evil".
So by your "logic"... raping child A is "not evil" if done by person B at the behest of person C who is threatening a different act against persons D through Z.
Child A Person B Person C Persons D through Z.
There's your requested scenario.
Yes, it is. Thank you.
So it is okay ("not evil") to rape a child as long as someone else wants you to do it AND promises not to kill some people if you do (when they have the ability to do so).
I can see why you spent so much effort trying to avoid putting that into a posting.
And the omnipotent/omniscient God that allows such a scenario is not "evil" for allowing such actions.
It gives a nice look at the inability of the faithful to process basic logic.
Okay, I guess I've been insufficiently clear. I propose, and would need evidence to suggest otherwise, that you have no definition to present for your use of "evil", and per your metaphysical system, the term would be meaningless and unsupportable.
So you're claiming that raping a child may not be "evil" because you claim "evil" has not been defined to your satisfaction.
And prior to that, you wanted to know if raping a child involves mammals.
Keep going.:) This is perfect.
In that respect, there is no difference between what you are asking me and "Give me an instance where rape would be grmuphcag."
So you're saying that you do not understand the concept of "evil" as in the act of raping a child being "evil".
Which implies that you can envision a scenario where raping a child would be a "good" act or, at best, a "neutral" act.
But you cannot explain that (those?) scenario(s) because you don't understand how raping a child would be considered "evil".
And you want me to provide details as to whether the child being raped is a mammal.
And that is how the mind of a believer works, people.
Substituting my meaning for what is your responsibility to define, does not move us forward to resolving anything but determining that you're mildly clever at conceptually parasiting off of others' worldviews for issues your own ability, and content derivable from -your stance-, is a complete void.
The only way that could be reasonable is if your definition of "evil" did NOT include the concept of raping a child OR If raping a child did not meet the requirements for "evil" for you.
To answer your question in its totality, I need to know if you can differentiate this case from similar interaction between humans and animals per se--that is, that you have some attribute you can point to that, from your perspective, is merely a different configuration of DNA that, mysteriously, in one case confers great moral import to.
Exactly. You cannot answer if raping a child is "evil" because... something about DNA.
If I'm going to be requested to offer an opinion, you need to define the context clearly, rather that simply presume correctness.
I ask you to give me a scenario where raping a child is not "evil" and you ask if they're both mammals.
And now you want to claim that I'm the one evading anything?
So I'll ask again. Under what scenario would raping a child NOT be "evil"?
If you cannot answer that then you cannot support your position. And that supports my position.
Good luck continuing to assume your opposition's defensible stances (from their worldview) that happen correspond in their conclusions (validly for them) to ones you deny a basis for from your stance (and therefore you hold them invalidly), though... mammal.
That's exactly what I expected from a believer. It makes sense in your head, where no one else can question your "logic". But when you try to use it to answer basic questions... you really have to ask if raping a child involves two mammals.
It gives me a chance to demonstrate the flaws in religions such as yours.
To be clear, though, the OP argument is based on events that are "evil", not your false-dichotomy notion that the alternatives are "absolute evil" and "absolute good". Even if I hadn't said "evil", even though I directly did, I still therefore would not be saying the event is "good".
That doesn't matter. Show a scenario where raping a child is not "evil".
If you cannot do that then you have failed to demonstrate your point or counter mine.
Let's try another round on seeing if you can get to the point of basic intellectual honesty here, though, and define your terms this time. Just for curiosity.
What, specifically, is the age of the entity you're describing hypothetically, and are that entity, and the other aggressor entity, both mammals?
Looks like you lose again.
"Rape of a child"... and not only have you failed to provide a single scenario where it isn't "evil" but now you're asking if they're both mammals.
You make it too easy.
I'll make it simple for you, again. In what scenario would raping a child not be "evil"?
There are lots of such acts, and you've move from one to another in your argument, the most rhetorically-effective to the most commonplace, if and when one or the next one were addressed in its particulars.
No I did not. I stayed with raping a child.
There are absolutely no events that could not be framed as "evil" in some respect, as long as we drop context and drop the -necessary- implications of withdrawing -necessary- components to the overall evaluation.
So you presume that there are some circumstance under which raping a child would be considered "good" (or at least not "evil").
Looks like you've just lost this discussion.
But please, enlighten me with an example of when raping a child would be "good" thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's my experience as well. I'm sure you can use the automatic search function faster ... provided you have the exact string to search on.
But thinking back even 2 years to what happening on a minor project and how to search for that? When there have been a dozen other projects using those same terms?
Project folders are the way to go.
So you keep claiming.
And each time you make that claim, you prove my point that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Here you are, again, claiming that you are right that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
Why would I want to "show otherwise"? My point (stated many times) in this thread is that the "logic" of the believers results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances).
And you are the example of that. And you're claiming that you are "right" for claiming such.
And fraud has been with us for a long, long time.
As the practices of the consumers have shifted (writing few checks, using less cash, increased credit/debit card use, on-line banking) the methods of fraud have shifted.
Unfortunately, the banks were able to also shift the "responsibility" for the fraud to the consumers.
If someone uses your identity to commit fraud then YOU are responsible for cleaning up the mess.
Even when YOU do not have any tools to PREVENT the fraud or even to be aware of it before the bank/store files a complaint against you.
Okay. Sounds good.
How is that "identity theft"? Unless they stole the computers containing personal information? If so, was it encrypted?
Buying stuff I can understand. But renting a jet? That's just stupid! No wonder they were caught.
So you can claim. But I'll stick with my point about how the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances). And as I have demonstrated with your posts.
Repeatedly.
And yet you've posted many times that you do believe that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances) and you have even provided a circumstance in which you believe that would be the case.
So it would seem that my point has been demonstrated by you, repeatedly.
Would you like me to quote you again, verbatim, on the subject? Here it is:
So it would seem that you made my point for me.
You claim that there are circumstances where raping a child is "not evil".
That is the "logic" of the believer. In your own words.
So you can claim. I'll stick to my statement that raping a child is evil.
You might want to look up the definitions of those words because I quote you verbatim.
Well it does say a couple of things.
1. That my point here is to show how the "logic" of a believer results in them saying things such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
2. That you have been unable to grasp that point despite it being repeated "dozens of times".
As I have stated (according to you) "dozens of times".
I say that raping a child is "evil". And that it is the "logic" of the believer that results in them claiming that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And your posts are the examples of that.
You say I'm an illogical, lying idiot who will not debate you when you say that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
If we SAVE that oil for now, when the world's supply starts to run low, we'll have 3.5 years of reserves (more with rationing).
If we use it now, we'll have 3.5 years of reduced imports ... and fewer reserves when the other sources start to run low.
Which plan is in the nation's best interest?
That's nice of you. As I had posted, the "logic" of the believer results in them claiming things such as the raping of a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
I don't think that it is ever "not evil".
Therefore, I am "an illogical lying idiot".
It's nice to have an example.
Wet fingers cause problems (rain, just washed your hands, etc).
Dirty fingers cause problems.
Dirty scanners cause problems.
Etc, etc, etc.
I'm thinking that this is just an excuse to spend money on "hi-tech" for the school district. Follow the money. Who's getting paid for it?
I've quoted you verbatim. If you consider that to be "misrepresentations" then that's up to you.
And, again, this isn't about contradicting your "logic" with facts.
This is about showing the "logic" of the believer which results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
But it is not evil in ALL circumstances according to you. That's the "logic" of the believer.
Hmmmm? Why do you use "could" there? Are you now backing away from your previous, oft-repeated, claim that there is at least one circumstance where it is "not evil"?
As I've stated before (many times), I'm not here to refute your position.
I'm here to show the "logic" of the believer and how that "logic" results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
As I've stated before (many times), I'm not here to refute your position.
I'm here to show the "logic" of the believer and how that "logic" results in them saying things like raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
As I have been doing for many, many, many posts in this thread.
Why? As I've stated (repeatedly), you aren't the student. You aren't the teacher. You are the EXAMPLE.
My point in this thread is NOT to show you where you are wrong.
My point in this thread is to show the other people reading it how the "logic" of the believer will result in them saying things such as raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Well then, that's an advantage for you, isn't it?
Meanwhile, I'll continue on my point which is that the "logic" of the believer results in them making claims such as raping a child being "not evil" (in certain circumstances). With you being the example of such.
Just to be clear for the audience, you agree that you are calling me "irrational".
Now, we just disagree on what, specifically, you are are accusing me of being "irrational" about.
Now, let's take a look at what you had posted, okay? :)
I am saying that raping a child is "evil".
And for that, you claim I am "irrational". :)
That's fine. Call me "irrational" for saying that raping a child is "evil". I have no problem with that.
As I've stated before, this thread is about the "logic" of a believer that leads him to claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances). And you are the example of that believer with that "logic" making that claim. :D
And again, no I do not.
My point in this thread is to show the "logic" of a believer and how that "logic" results in them making statements such as raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
You can claim it is "correct logic". You can claim a lot of things.
All you're doing is making my point for me. Again and again. So nice of you to do that.
Again, if I was lying, I'm sure you'd be able to quote me. But you cannot.
As to why I'm "persisting" ... I'm doing this to show the "logic" of a believer. As I've said many times in this thread.
Exactly. And, as I have stated before, my point is that the "logic" of a believer is such that they will claim that even raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
It took a bit to get you to actually post that instead of going off on tangents about whether the child being raped was a mammal and something about DNA. But it worked in the end.
I'm not arguing whether mammals are animals.
I'm pointing out that in the discussion of whether a child being raped is "evil", you wanted to clarify whether the child being raped was a mammal.
And then you said that a child being raped was "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And my point was that a believer would think that because of the "logic" of their beliefs. :)
And your posts in this thread are the examples of that "logic".
Just so the people reading this don't get confused, you're calling me irrational for my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Just keeping that clear. :D
If it makes you feel better to claim that I've lied, then you'll do so.
But I can quote you exactly and link to your posts where you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And you're still making that claim. :D
Again, as I have stated many times, that is EXACTLY my point in this thread.
Other people can see you (a believer) arguing that raping a child is NOT ALWAYS "evil".
No. You asked if the child being raped was a MAMMAL.
LMAO
In a discussion of whether RAPING A CHILD is "evil" you want to know if the child is a mammal.
Again, you can claim that.
My point was to use this thread to show the "logic" of a believer that causes them to argue that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
As you have continued to do throughout this entire thread.
Great! That's binary thinking at its finest!
I'll stick to the concept that raping a child is "evil". :D
Go ahead, call me irrational for that.
Again, I don't care about you. All you are is an EXAMPLE of the "logic" of the believers.
I don't have to define "evil" in the context of raping a child because the point is that YOUR "logic" requires that it be "not evil" (in certain situations).
What I am doing is illustrating that "logic". Over and over and over.
Every time you demand that I define "evil" in the context of raping a child YOU MAKE MY POINT FOR ME.
It even got to the point where you wanted me to tell you if the child being raped was a MAMMAL or not.
You don't understand. This is NOT about your edification. You are not the student. You are not the teacher. You are the EXAMPLE.
Nope. Again, the POINT is that YOU want to play semantic games about whether raping a child is "evil" BECAUSE your belief requires that raping a child be "not evil" (your words) in certain situations.
Of course you are. You're just not sure by what I mean when I talk about how raping a child is "evil".
That makes perfect sense. To you.
I'm not arguing that. I'm demonstrating how the "logic" of a believer works. And you are the example.
To you, it is not "evil" to rape a child - under certain circumstances. And yes, that is EXACTLY what you have stated.
And to you, that seems "logical" because I haven't stated whether the child being raped is a mammal or been clear enough on their DNA.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that this is about YOU. It isn't. It is about the thought processes that you represent.
Once you accept X (illogical to a non-believer) then you can justify ANYTHING. Even the rape of a child.
You will avoid specifically stating such. You will try different tangents. You will demand additional clarification.
But in the end, you believe that raping a child is "not evil" (your words) under certain circumstances. As you have stated.
Ummmm, did you miss the original point?
Let me help you with that:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is God able to prevent evil, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is God both willing and able to prevent evil?
Then how does evil still exist?
Is God neither able, nor willing to prevent evil?
Then why call him God?
And then you posted:
There's a very simple counter to that idea - the rape of a child. In what context would it NOT be "evil".
And all of these posts since then have been about you avoiding that very simple question. Because you cannot answer it without proving the original assertion.
You might want to look up the term "lesser of two evils". No, it is NOT "clear" to me that it is "not evil". It is STILL "evil".
Let me break you little dream down a bit. Your position for raping a child being "not evil" (do you think I'm ever going to not quote you on that) requires:
1 - child victim (person A)
2 - secondary actor (person B) (acts under orders of 3)
3 - potential primary actor in a SECONDARY action (person C)
4 - a SECONDARY action (death as opposed to rape)
5 - multiples of 4 (multiple people die)
So what you're trying to do is to claim that raping a child is "not evil" ... if you can pile enough other acts onto it that have the POTENTIAL to be worse (even if such acts are NOT performed).
And THAT is the "logic" of the believer.
First it was mammals. Then it was DNA. Now it is starving children.
Does your "logic" prevent you from staying on topic?
Exactly. The "logic" of the believer.
It isn't the ACT that is "evil". Even when raping a child.
It is who does it. And if God does it, then it is "good".
Even raping a child.
Thank you for your participation, believer.
What is with this "infer"?
Why did you have a PROBLEM in all your other posts with "spell[ing] it out"?
Meanwhile, all the time insisting that I had to clarify whether raping a child involved a mammal and that it had something to do with DNA. And now you're off on a tangent about hamburgers or something.
And THAT is the mind of a believer.
And yet ...
So you are "perfectly clear" about it BUT you don't understand it.
Nice. And exactly what I expected from a believer.
And yet it was YOU who insisted there was some confusion over the concept of "evil" in the context of raping a child. So much confusion, in fact, that you wanted me to clarify whether two MAMMALS were involved.
And then you went off on some DNA tangent.
Keep going! This is perfect.
So you can claim. But that doesn't seem to be accurate.
Nope. Only when there is a question of what the terms mean in the given context.
Which means that in order for me to HAVE to define "evil" in the context of raping a child you would have to be able to indicate a situation where "evil" did not apply to raping a child or where raping a child was, somehow, "good" or "neutral".
Otherwise it is just you trying to play semantic games.
So you can claim. Yet you are the one who insisted that I identify whether the child being raped is a mammal or not. And there was something else about DNA later.
So you can claim. And, again, you are the one who wanted clarification if the child being raped was a mammal or not.
Actually, I think the exact opposite. I'm sure that it is demonstrating the "logic" of the believers and the steps they go through when confronted.
Again, YOU were the one who wanted to know if the child being raped was a mammal. Not me.
And, again, the issue isn't whether I will define "evil" for you.
The issue is whether YOU understand "evil" in the context of raping a child.
And because it contradicts your beliefs, you are claiming that it is my responsibility to define "evil" for you IN THE CONTEXT OF RAPING A CHILD.
Your attempts at semantic games only result in your posts implying that you do NOT understand "evil" in the context of raping a child. And that is the mind of the believer.
So by your "logic" ...
raping child A is "not evil" if done by person B at the behest of person C who is threatening a different act against persons D through Z.
Child A
Person B
Person C
Persons D through Z.
Yes, it is. Thank you.
So it is okay ("not evil") to rape a child as long as someone else wants you to do it AND promises not to kill some people if you do (when they have the ability to do so).
I can see why you spent so much effort trying to avoid putting that into a posting.
And the omnipotent/omniscient God that allows such a scenario is not "evil" for allowing such actions.
It's easier (and more lucrative) for existing companies to use lawyers to bankrupt anyone with a creative idea that might threaten those companies.
The moment you try to capitalize on your idea, you'll be looking at cease-and-desist letters and lawsuits claiming some kind of infringement.
The entire system needs an overhaul.
It gives a nice look at the inability of the faithful to process basic logic.
So you're claiming that raping a child may not be "evil" because you claim "evil" has not been defined to your satisfaction.
And prior to that, you wanted to know if raping a child involves mammals.
Keep going. :)
This is perfect.
So you're saying that you do not understand the concept of "evil" as in the act of raping a child being "evil".
Which implies that you can envision a scenario where raping a child would be a "good" act or, at best, a "neutral" act.
But you cannot explain that (those?) scenario(s) because you don't understand how raping a child would be considered "evil".
And you want me to provide details as to whether the child being raped is a mammal.
And that is how the mind of a believer works, people.
The only way that could be reasonable is if your definition of "evil" did NOT include the concept of raping a child
OR
If raping a child did not meet the requirements for "evil" for you.
Exactly. You cannot answer if raping a child is "evil" because ... something about DNA.
AWESOME! :)
I ask you to give me a scenario where raping a child is not "evil" and you ask if they're both mammals.
And now you want to claim that I'm the one evading anything?
So I'll ask again. Under what scenario would raping a child NOT be "evil"?
If you cannot answer that then you cannot support your position. And that supports my position.
That's exactly what I expected from a believer. It makes sense in your head, where no one else can question your "logic". But when you try to use it to answer basic questions ... you really have to ask if raping a child involves two mammals.
It gives me a chance to demonstrate the flaws in religions such as yours.
That doesn't matter. Show a scenario where raping a child is not "evil".
If you cannot do that then you have failed to demonstrate your point or counter mine.
Looks like you lose again.
"Rape of a child" ... and not only have you failed to provide a single scenario where it isn't "evil" but now you're asking if they're both mammals.
You make it too easy.
I'll make it simple for you, again.
In what scenario would raping a child not be "evil"?
No I did not. I stayed with raping a child.
So you presume that there are some circumstance under which raping a child would be considered "good" (or at least not "evil").
Looks like you've just lost this discussion.
But please, enlighten me with an example of when raping a child would be "good" thing to do.