Don't make it too easy... one worldview may indeed be able to validly say "I accept this interpretation over the other", but it doesn't follow that a worldview which must reject all interpretation alternatives is in quite the same explanatory position...
On the other hand, the nomad did toast Kurzweil on both prescience and accuracy of the upper-bound (we'd be sailing past it by 2010 according to his 2001 "The Law of Accelerating Returns"--he's now in the AI-reminiscent "add 20 years to the current date" mode), and without the internet to draw any global reference data from.
And guess which of the two Slashdot would acknowledge as an authoritative reference...
If the genetically-engineered "fluorescent cats" were released into the wild, and reproduced with the current population, if you were to review the DNA from an instance resulting population 50000 years from now, by what means would you determine this as a case of design (but, "design we can ignore") rather than occurring purely through evolutionary mechanisms, presuming you lacked the a-priori knowledge of the historical genetic engineering?
What would be the physical marker/differentiator for the two cases?
Nah, despite being trolled, the wider reality is there are the outlines of a dozen different viable responses to the only matter of wider import here from the perspective of anyone other than he and I, the "Problem of Evil" as it is commonly known. Those who want them, can extract these without difficulty, and if this thread is any indication, use absolutely any of them without, often, the slightest valid beginnings to a counterargument. I won this, no question, on everything but an emotional/rhetorical level, and that level only has temporary helpfulness even for the opposition themselves.
In general, though, one can expect the standard line of argument to be more robust and less pointlessly annoying, from most holders of opposing viewpoints, but the data is still there.
And no, as would be both of our preferences, there will be no further responses on my side to "Khasim". As for more-effective nuance I might have had, it is indeed a personal challenge of mine to call those unrelenting in idiotic arguments "idiots", and those who are lying (or persistently being disingenuous) "liars". This tends to give the impression, if not the reality, of overextending one's argument.;)
This particular argument presents a particular challenge in that respect, as one tends to start off in an apparently-defensive position of "reject God or say you advocate rape (or any of myriad cheap accusations)". In my experience, the counterargument tends to run along a pattern of encirclement of the opposition's premises that are valid in their conclusions but invalid in their rationale, as if they have them by happenstance (and apparently they often actually do in reality!), and by parasitically asserting a theistic position while denying any rational basis for that position (at least ones they can name and support--though most atheists do -way- better with that than this guy).
There isn't any preferable way to me to address it I've encountered other than undermining the bases for the assertion--undermining through legitimate counterarguments, that is, but still requiring a digressive, and long, approach. I am always interested in better efficiency in concluding a standard argument, though, and will give your feedback consideration...
Unbelievable. You're a complete void of content with nothing but spamming repetition with zero capability for rational thought or counterargument sprinkled in.
Yes. Fact. Clear to anyone who takes any time to review the clear evidence of that mess you call your mind.
Meanwhile, I can quote you, verbatim, about how you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Look, idiot, quoting me on what I have not denied saying and which is completely correct is something that matters only in your deluded, spamming mind. I have said it, would say it again, it is completely correct, it is not evil if the "certain" circumstances are that it was the only way to avoid something much worse, like millions of deaths. Again, all sides of this issue, religious and secular philosophy, agree with me, according to every one of the "logics" that exist, to put it in your bizarre, irrational terms. Avoiding the much greater evil is the overriding factor here, from -all- perspectives, except the demented one you can neither support at all nor even reference your reasoning or source for. How broken does your brain have to be to think that emptily repeating this for the hundredth time matters to anyone, anywhere, for anything to do with anything?
It is absolutely clear that you have said that it would be evil in -all cases-, which would include if that meant in the case of mass death in the alternative. If you are now saying otherwise, stop being an evasive coward, as you have proven to be, and directly say otherwise. That exceptional circumstance would be "qualification" from your absolute statement. You have said -no qualifications-. Again, it's only in your broken, irrational mind that you think anybody reads "no qualifications" as other than "no qualifications" and does anything other apply it as having that meaning, even if there's no possible way to guarantee that their valid application uses the same "verbatim" words as you do in your deceptive, cowardly, broken thought process. This is a debate forum, not a "guess the exact words in my brain or you're a liar" forum.
You have profound issues with basic requirements of rational thought, this is absolutely clear. Spamming this again will do nothing but make that even more clear. You are making quite the "example", but of nothing but your own absurdity. Nothing you are doing will change this. You may be hoping that the hundredth time you repeat what I have said, which is accurate, undenied, and unchallenged in any rational way by you, will be noticed as an "example" of "believer's logic" and somebody will support your stance, in the face of all rationality. Nobody's coming, nobody will be doing that, nobody but me is going to waste a second on you, other than me, as you've overwhelmingly provided them no reason to do, with full "demonstration" you'll never be capable of it justifying a reason.
You can go ahead and wait all the way to you getting Naturally Deselected, if you like. Makes no difference, and if Darwin is the only way to fix you, I leave it in his capable and inevitable hands.
I think it's even worse than that. A "secret interpretation" doesn't even give us the basis for general expectations based on having an objective, available reference of the -same- code. This is more like having an entirely new spec with no necessary correspondence to the code available as the only means to characterize or evaluate it. Yet, it suggests the veneer of being like the objective reference by mere association with it.
It is, and it is not, this or any particular other thing at the sole discretion of those with access to the "secret" information that actually defines it. It seems like the very definition of institutionalized deception, that doesn't even acknowledge itself as such.
Like it's said... Mystery, mother of the abominations of the Earth...
Wow. You caught me that I said what I have never denied saying. Yes, I did indeed say that correct thing you keep accusing me of saying. Yes, it is still correct.
There are no lies. There's you playing stupid linguistic games like you saying that gravity exists, but if I say you assert that things fall if dropped, your response is "Liar! I never said that verbatim!" It's just ridiculous. Nobody is, or could miss this.
"Demonstrate" whatever you like, you're a fool who hasn't been able to address a single substantive point anywhere out of dozens in this thread, and continues a particularly stupid method of attempting to distract from the fact you haven't justified how I am anything but correct, or how your "always evil" opinion is anything but incorrect, by simply re-stating again and again my still-correct position.
And no, none of your imaginary multiple logics will help you alter this fact.
Yes, I know your claims, you've said the same exact thing a dozen times, regardless of how many counterpoints or questions were there that you -should- have answered.
Again, zero lies, anyone at all can read the posts and my statements and yours and verify this. "Not evil" only in an extreme circumstance where the only option was far worse--again, verifiable by anyone.
And, there's only one logic--as everyone competent already knows, no review needed at all. If that's your only takeaway for you from this discussion--make it that.
Wow, even more evasion than usual. You answered almost nothing of what you were asked.
Simple fact is, though, if you directly state A, and directly state B, and those lead by direct, unarguable inference to C, then C is an accurate statement of your position. Especially when you challenge no part of this. If you say "It is evil to shoot someone, without qualification", and a police officer shoots someone who is going to blow up a building, you are saying that he should not shoot the bomber, and the building being destroyed is your preferred choice.
That is what an "unqualified" position means, and why most thoughtful people avoid them. It's not really complicated.
But, anyway, since you're down to just spamming, and your personal views don't really matter in a broader sense anyway, I'll just suggest this as in interesting "example" of the nature and arguments of a "Problem of Evil" debate, for the wider reader, though, fair warning to them, it's unusual for the other side to collapse and start evading quite as thoroughly and quickly as was the case here.
I have not added any qualification to my statement. My statement does not require any qualifications.
Do you, or do you not, acknowledge this is a direct quote?
By all means, if you have some other meaning to your statement asserting no "qualifications", than that it is descriptively sufficient in itself and therefore applying to all possible cases, feel free.
As for the "logic" question... well, yes. Where would you have acquired the idea that there are multiple logics? Can you give me a count of how many there are, say, one logic per different religious belief? Maybe another logic for each political party? One for you and another for everyone else?
And, since you keep (pointlessly) repeating it, and appear to want to deal with questions of logic by means of out-spamming your opposition, I feel I should re-iterate it: As always, I am in complete agreement that rape is evil in the general case, and the question here is whether there could be exceptions, as that's core to the question of whether we can objectively judge God as "evil" for allowing an act that appears (at least subjectively) "evil".
In your case it's more of a case of you -happening- to be correct by coincidence in your conclusion as to the general case, but personally deserving no credit for that as you haven't actually supported that stance from your own worldview in any way (and, naturally, having no moral force to actually help with such a situation, in its unbacked state), but that's another attribute to the discussion here.
So, back to the question at hand: What precisely did you mean by "qualifications" in my direct quote?
Okay, so when you say "no qualifications", do you mean there are, or are not, any exceptions?
I assume not, because that's directly required as to what someone must read your words as saying.
If there are no exceptions, then, if mass-murder would be the result for a proposed exception, and you reject that there are any exceptions (or qualifications) to your stance, you advocate mass-murder.
Look, you just need to be basically honest with what you said and what that means according to any rational person who can use the only logic there is. I realize sometimes your misrepresentations are apparently inadvertent, like misrepresenting things is by now so automatic and habitual to you it's become unconscious. But, that's probably fixable. Just read what you said, ask anyone else around you, or from anywhere, whether anything I'm saying is inaccurate. When they say no, then you can become aware of your habitual disingenuousness and start to correct it. If necessary, have them read what you said, to let you know you did indeed say it by noting the words on the screen that you typed. As them if "no qualifications", as you put it, means "no exceptions".
But I never said that. Nor would you be able to provide a quote from me showing such
Sure I will.
I have not added any qualification to my statement. My statement does not require any qualifications.
Since we have clearly been talking for some time about specifically a scenario where the alternative would be a nuclear strike on the U.S. and Europe by an unbalanced Soviet autocrat, that is, mass murder, your second assertion means that in all cases ("without qualification") the preventative action would be evil. Therefore, you by definition reject the action that would avoid the mass murder, even in that extreme scenario. Therefore, you advocate mass murder (in certain circumstances).
I know, it's just that "logic" you dislike because it so persistently shows you wrong.
Now, just go one post without making another false statement, and we're done.
"In an unusual scenario, such as a mob killer, this would not always be the case. It could be that some forms of earning one's livelihood are evil."
The general case is one thing, the specific qualified scenario is another. Being willfully ignorant of how descriptions work does not alter this, and persistently referring to one as if you are addressing the other does not either.
You are doing the precisely same thing as, when the discussion is about mob assassins, simply ignoring the qualifier to the case at hand and endlessly repeating "I stand by my statement that working for one's livelihood is good." As a generality, yes. When the qualification of a particular case is made, and that is the case at hand and under discussion, this -must- be acknowledged and responded to in its specifics. Ignoring the qualification and responding as if a situation were as it is -explicitly not-, per the discussion, again, is just illogical.
Not merely according to "believer's logic", as there is only one logic, anywhere, at any time, about anything. This is a fact as to what logic is, everywhere, all the time, about everything.
Your options are either to cede to a logical argument or demonstrate -specifically- where the statement is incorrect by reference to a logical counterpoint or counterargument. Creative punctuation is -not- a response that grants you automatic correctness in any argument about any topic, any time you like.
Just... so much of a gulf here for you to be even qualified to speak. It's like having a software development discussion with somebody who disagrees with how math works, in the few areas where he happens to know even basic arithmetic.
A useless endeavor, but, yes, this is entirely your issue and problem, unless I continue with you and make it mine as well.
You stand by your useless statement that states what nobody is arguing against, and evades any real ethical decision of a scenario you should have a response to, but choose to dodge through endless repetition of the off-topic instead, that is.
But sure, have nothing, be able to do nothing, and just describe it as "believer's logic" even though logic per se in unalterable (even impervious to you adding quotes to whatever arguments you find you don't like), and -both- secular and religious ethics agree with me. If it were otherwise, you'd not fail so miserably to make any defense of your position at all. "Believer's logic"... it might make people miss you've offered nothing but a void, and are capable of producing nothing but that void from your vacuum of non-knowledge. Of course, we'll all still know (yes, including you) it's just that they missed it though, rather than you having, or being, more than nothing here.
Yes, "nothing" objectively-speaking, and from any worldview. Not opinion, fact. "Believer" or not.
And thanks, once again, for demonstrating the correct logic of believers, especially with degree of sharp contrast you can uniquely provide.
Next time I need someone who would choose the mass death of millions over temporary harm to one, I'll be sure to get in touch for your ethical expertise.
Because the certainly isn't any other reason requiring you to be logically or factually coherent, that anyone would do so.
Okay, so you'd choose instead to kill millions of people, including millions of children, and choose the worst possible outcome for millions of people, over a very bad outcome for one person.
And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is "evil".
No, you are not. You are the one saying it would be "evil" -even in the extreme circumstance- where it would entail the deaths of millions, including millions of children. That is the only issue at hand.
Yes, I know you cannot be counted on to honestly restate anything whatsoever, and no doubt if necessary you'd just describe it as "believer's truth" and start claiming, again with no backing, that true things aren't true if you put the word "true" in quotes. That's just as valid as what you're doing with "logic", that is, totally, objectively, invalid.
Nonetheless, this is an accurate recounting. Your only objection is to my stating that it would be "not evil" -in that circumstance- (you know perfectly well I've said it would be evil in the general case, and there is no contrary opinion here for you to be addressing for the general case), and by the terms of logic, that logic you put in quotes and therefore assert is wrong, you -must- include the actual scenario in your evaluation. Of course, you don't. You just drop it, and act like misstating the issue at hand, and addressing something else entirely, has any relevance.
Of course, that is all just "logic". Just that "logic" the rules of which are established by the last 2000 years of philosophy, and are, at this point, unarguable.
You must be simply trolling me. I cannot believe anyone can be as stupid as you are exhibiting, repeatedly. Anyway, again, there's no benefit possible to discussion with you, for anyone. Maybe you'll succeed in trolling me for one more post. Probably not.
That mass-murder as an alternative would be worse, is a fact. That you advocating this alternative makes you the only evil party to this discussion, is a fact. That you're irrational for thinking you need to back nothing you say and expect automatic agreement, is a fact. That there there is no such thing as a "logic" that becomes wrong, when it's shown right and rationally uncontested, by your addition of quotation marks, is a fact.
You are clearly untroubled by being contrary to the facts. So be it, but there is nothing to be gained from discussion with you in any respect.
Well, all I can say is that you exhibit an astonishing level of repetitive idiocy, and advise you to never take a Philosophy class at any level, as you would be destined to fail.
Logic works how it does. True statements work how they do. Pointing out over and over again a true statement, does nothing but show as your "example" a true statement--and in this case, exhibit one for which you possess not the slightest capability to argue on counterindicate on any level.
And yes, I guarantee any Philo 101 professor, upon you repeating the same thing for the dozenth time with no backing of your position, as if everyone should fall in line with you and agree for no reason whatsoever, will result in him calling you an idiot with exactly as much accuracy as I do. That is, absolute accuracy, according to the entire history of logic. And for the record, there is no "logic" to be made false by you adding quotation marks, idiot, there is only logic, and the illogical. You fall into the latter category.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't make it too easy... one worldview may indeed be able to validly say "I accept this interpretation over the other", but it doesn't follow that a worldview which must reject all interpretation alternatives is in quite the same explanatory position...
On the other hand, the nomad did toast Kurzweil on both prescience and accuracy of the upper-bound (we'd be sailing past it by 2010 according to his 2001 "The Law of Accelerating Returns"--he's now in the AI-reminiscent "add 20 years to the current date" mode), and without the internet to draw any global reference data from.
And guess which of the two Slashdot would acknowledge as an authoritative reference...
Teleology called. They'd like their terms "defect", "feature", and "bug" back.
So does Genesis 3:14, but that's a whole different can of... snakes.
Interesting statement.
If the genetically-engineered "fluorescent cats" were released into the wild, and reproduced with the current population, if you were to review the DNA from an instance resulting population 50000 years from now, by what means would you determine this as a case of design (but, "design we can ignore") rather than occurring purely through evolutionary mechanisms, presuming you lacked the a-priori knowledge of the historical genetic engineering?
What would be the physical marker/differentiator for the two cases?
Prior Art
Glad Khasim has another irrational friend--or at least an imaginary AC one that's he can tell himself is sufficiently irrational to be one. ;)
Nah, despite being trolled, the wider reality is there are the outlines of a dozen different viable responses to the only matter of wider import here from the perspective of anyone other than he and I, the "Problem of Evil" as it is commonly known. Those who want them, can extract these without difficulty, and if this thread is any indication, use absolutely any of them without, often, the slightest valid beginnings to a counterargument. I won this, no question, on everything but an emotional/rhetorical level, and that level only has temporary helpfulness even for the opposition themselves.
;)
.
In general, though, one can expect the standard line of argument to be more robust and less pointlessly annoying, from most holders of opposing viewpoints, but the data is still there.
And no, as would be both of our preferences, there will be no further responses on my side to "Khasim". As for more-effective nuance I might have had, it is indeed a personal challenge of mine to call those unrelenting in idiotic arguments "idiots", and those who are lying (or persistently being disingenuous) "liars". This tends to give the impression, if not the reality, of overextending one's argument.
This particular argument presents a particular challenge in that respect, as one tends to start off in an apparently-defensive position of "reject God or say you advocate rape (or any of myriad cheap accusations)". In my experience, the counterargument tends to run along a pattern of encirclement of the opposition's premises that are valid in their conclusions but invalid in their rationale, as if they have them by happenstance (and apparently they often actually do in reality!), and by parasitically asserting a theistic position while denying any rational basis for that position (at least ones they can name and support--though most atheists do -way- better with that than this guy)
There isn't any preferable way to me to address it I've encountered other than undermining the bases for the assertion--undermining through legitimate counterarguments, that is, but still requiring a digressive, and long, approach. I am always interested in better efficiency in concluding a standard argument, though, and will give your feedback consideration...
Unbelievable. You're a complete void of content with nothing but spamming repetition with zero capability for rational thought or counterargument sprinkled in.
Yes. Fact. Clear to anyone who takes any time to review the clear evidence of that mess you call your mind.
This one's Darwin's. Bye.
Meanwhile, I can quote you, verbatim, about how you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (in certain circumstances).
Look, idiot, quoting me on what I have not denied saying and which is completely correct is something that matters only in your deluded, spamming mind. I have said it, would say it again, it is completely correct, it is not evil if the "certain" circumstances are that it was the only way to avoid something much worse, like millions of deaths. Again, all sides of this issue, religious and secular philosophy, agree with me, according to every one of the "logics" that exist, to put it in your bizarre, irrational terms. Avoiding the much greater evil is the overriding factor here, from -all- perspectives, except the demented one you can neither support at all nor even reference your reasoning or source for. How broken does your brain have to be to think that emptily repeating this for the hundredth time matters to anyone, anywhere, for anything to do with anything?
It is absolutely clear that you have said that it would be evil in -all cases-, which would include if that meant in the case of mass death in the alternative. If you are now saying otherwise, stop being an evasive coward, as you have proven to be, and directly say otherwise. That exceptional circumstance would be "qualification" from your absolute statement. You have said -no qualifications-. Again, it's only in your broken, irrational mind that you think anybody reads "no qualifications" as other than "no qualifications" and does anything other apply it as having that meaning, even if there's no possible way to guarantee that their valid application uses the same "verbatim" words as you do in your deceptive, cowardly, broken thought process. This is a debate forum, not a "guess the exact words in my brain or you're a liar" forum.
You have profound issues with basic requirements of rational thought, this is absolutely clear. Spamming this again will do nothing but make that even more clear. You are making quite the "example", but of nothing but your own absurdity. Nothing you are doing will change this. You may be hoping that the hundredth time you repeat what I have said, which is accurate, undenied, and unchallenged in any rational way by you, will be noticed as an "example" of "believer's logic" and somebody will support your stance, in the face of all rationality. Nobody's coming, nobody will be doing that, nobody but me is going to waste a second on you, other than me, as you've overwhelmingly provided them no reason to do, with full "demonstration" you'll never be capable of it justifying a reason.
You can go ahead and wait all the way to you getting Naturally Deselected, if you like. Makes no difference, and if Darwin is the only way to fix you, I leave it in his capable and inevitable hands.
I think it's even worse than that. A "secret interpretation" doesn't even give us the basis for general expectations based on having an objective, available reference of the -same- code. This is more like having an entirely new spec with no necessary correspondence to the code available as the only means to characterize or evaluate it. Yet, it suggests the veneer of being like the objective reference by mere association with it.
It is, and it is not, this or any particular other thing at the sole discretion of those with access to the "secret" information that actually defines it. It seems like the very definition of institutionalized deception, that doesn't even acknowledge itself as such.
Like it's said... Mystery, mother of the abominations of the Earth...
Wow. You caught me that I said what I have never denied saying. Yes, I did indeed say that correct thing you keep accusing me of saying. Yes, it is still correct.
There are no lies. There's you playing stupid linguistic games like you saying that gravity exists, but if I say you assert that things fall if dropped, your response is "Liar! I never said that verbatim!" It's just ridiculous. Nobody is, or could miss this.
"Demonstrate" whatever you like, you're a fool who hasn't been able to address a single substantive point anywhere out of dozens in this thread, and continues a particularly stupid method of attempting to distract from the fact you haven't justified how I am anything but correct, or how your "always evil" opinion is anything but incorrect, by simply re-stating again and again my still-correct position.
And no, none of your imaginary multiple logics will help you alter this fact.
Yes, I know your claims, you've said the same exact thing a dozen times, regardless of how many counterpoints or questions were there that you -should- have answered.
Again, zero lies, anyone at all can read the posts and my statements and yours and verify this. "Not evil" only in an extreme circumstance where the only option was far worse--again, verifiable by anyone.
And, there's only one logic--as everyone competent already knows, no review needed at all. If that's your only takeaway for you from this discussion--make it that.
Wow, even more evasion than usual. You answered almost nothing of what you were asked.
Simple fact is, though, if you directly state A, and directly state B, and those lead by direct, unarguable inference to C, then C is an accurate statement of your position. Especially when you challenge no part of this. If you say "It is evil to shoot someone, without qualification", and a police officer shoots someone who is going to blow up a building, you are saying that he should not shoot the bomber, and the building being destroyed is your preferred choice.
That is what an "unqualified" position means, and why most thoughtful people avoid them. It's not really complicated.
But, anyway, since you're down to just spamming, and your personal views don't really matter in a broader sense anyway, I'll just suggest this as in interesting "example" of the nature and arguments of a "Problem of Evil" debate, for the wider reader, though, fair warning to them, it's unusual for the other side to collapse and start evading quite as thoroughly and quickly as was the case here.
And, time to move on, to the next thing.
I have not added any qualification to my statement. My statement does not require any qualifications.
Do you, or do you not, acknowledge this is a direct quote?
By all means, if you have some other meaning to your statement asserting no "qualifications", than that it is descriptively sufficient in itself and therefore applying to all possible cases, feel free.
As for the "logic" question... well, yes. Where would you have acquired the idea that there are multiple logics? Can you give me a count of how many there are, say, one logic per different religious belief? Maybe another logic for each political party? One for you and another for everyone else?
And, since you keep (pointlessly) repeating it, and appear to want to deal with questions of logic by means of out-spamming your opposition, I feel I should re-iterate it: As always, I am in complete agreement that rape is evil in the general case, and the question here is whether there could be exceptions, as that's core to the question of whether we can objectively judge God as "evil" for allowing an act that appears (at least subjectively) "evil".
In your case it's more of a case of you -happening- to be correct by coincidence in your conclusion as to the general case, but personally deserving no credit for that as you haven't actually supported that stance from your own worldview in any way (and, naturally, having no moral force to actually help with such a situation, in its unbacked state), but that's another attribute to the discussion here.
So, back to the question at hand: What precisely did you mean by "qualifications" in my direct quote?
Okay, so when you say "no qualifications", do you mean there are, or are not, any exceptions?
I assume not, because that's directly required as to what someone must read your words as saying.
If there are no exceptions, then, if mass-murder would be the result for a proposed exception, and you reject that there are any exceptions (or qualifications) to your stance, you advocate mass-murder.
Look, you just need to be basically honest with what you said and what that means according to any rational person who can use the only logic there is. I realize sometimes your misrepresentations are apparently inadvertent, like misrepresenting things is by now so automatic and habitual to you it's become unconscious. But, that's probably fixable. Just read what you said, ask anyone else around you, or from anywhere, whether anything I'm saying is inaccurate. When they say no, then you can become aware of your habitual disingenuousness and start to correct it. If necessary, have them read what you said, to let you know you did indeed say it by noting the words on the screen that you typed. As them if "no qualifications", as you put it, means "no exceptions".
Not that difficult, really. It'll be worth it.
But I never said that. Nor would you be able to provide a quote from me showing such
Sure I will.
I have not added any qualification to my statement. My statement does not require any qualifications.
Since we have clearly been talking for some time about specifically a scenario where the alternative would be a nuclear strike on the U.S. and Europe by an unbalanced Soviet autocrat, that is, mass murder, your second assertion means that in all cases ("without qualification") the preventative action would be evil. Therefore, you by definition reject the action that would avoid the mass murder, even in that extreme scenario. Therefore, you advocate mass murder (in certain circumstances).
I know, it's just that "logic" you dislike because it so persistently shows you wrong.
Now, just go one post without making another false statement, and we're done.
Okay, tedium. Wrong in every way, advocate of mass murder (in certain circumstances).
Since you're reduced to having nothing valid to say and just repeating the same wrongness, now with exactly the same words, let's leave it at that.
No, you cannot be this absurd.
"Working to earn your livelihood is good."
"In an unusual scenario, such as a mob killer, this would not always be the case. It could be that some forms of earning one's livelihood are evil."
The general case is one thing, the specific qualified scenario is another. Being willfully ignorant of how descriptions work does not alter this, and persistently referring to one as if you are addressing the other does not either.
You are doing the precisely same thing as, when the discussion is about mob assassins, simply ignoring the qualifier to the case at hand and endlessly repeating "I stand by my statement that working for one's livelihood is good." As a generality, yes. When the qualification of a particular case is made, and that is the case at hand and under discussion, this -must- be acknowledged and responded to in its specifics. Ignoring the qualification and responding as if a situation were as it is -explicitly not-, per the discussion, again, is just illogical.
Not merely according to "believer's logic", as there is only one logic, anywhere, at any time, about anything. This is a fact as to what logic is, everywhere, all the time, about everything.
Your options are either to cede to a logical argument or demonstrate -specifically- where the statement is incorrect by reference to a logical counterpoint or counterargument. Creative punctuation is -not- a response that grants you automatic correctness in any argument about any topic, any time you like.
Just... so much of a gulf here for you to be even qualified to speak. It's like having a software development discussion with somebody who disagrees with how math works, in the few areas where he happens to know even basic arithmetic.
A useless endeavor, but, yes, this is entirely your issue and problem, unless I continue with you and make it mine as well.
You stand by your useless statement that states what nobody is arguing against, and evades any real ethical decision of a scenario you should have a response to, but choose to dodge through endless repetition of the off-topic instead, that is.
But sure, have nothing, be able to do nothing, and just describe it as "believer's logic" even though logic per se in unalterable (even impervious to you adding quotes to whatever arguments you find you don't like), and -both- secular and religious ethics agree with me. If it were otherwise, you'd not fail so miserably to make any defense of your position at all. "Believer's logic"... it might make people miss you've offered nothing but a void, and are capable of producing nothing but that void from your vacuum of non-knowledge. Of course, we'll all still know (yes, including you) it's just that they missed it though, rather than you having, or being, more than nothing here.
Yes, "nothing" objectively-speaking, and from any worldview. Not opinion, fact. "Believer" or not.
And thanks, once again, for demonstrating the correct logic of believers, especially with degree of sharp contrast you can uniquely provide.
Next time I need someone who would choose the mass death of millions over temporary harm to one, I'll be sure to get in touch for your ethical expertise.
Because the certainly isn't any other reason requiring you to be logically or factually coherent, that anyone would do so.
Later.
Okay, so you'd choose instead to kill millions of people, including millions of children, and choose the worst possible outcome for millions of people, over a very bad outcome for one person.
Got it.
There's nothing more to say here.
And yet I'm the one saying that raping a child is "evil".
No, you are not. You are the one saying it would be "evil" -even in the extreme circumstance- where it would entail the deaths of millions, including millions of children. That is the only issue at hand.
Yes, I know you cannot be counted on to honestly restate anything whatsoever, and no doubt if necessary you'd just describe it as "believer's truth" and start claiming, again with no backing, that true things aren't true if you put the word "true" in quotes. That's just as valid as what you're doing with "logic", that is, totally, objectively, invalid.
Nonetheless, this is an accurate recounting. Your only objection is to my stating that it would be "not evil" -in that circumstance- (you know perfectly well I've said it would be evil in the general case, and there is no contrary opinion here for you to be addressing for the general case), and by the terms of logic, that logic you put in quotes and therefore assert is wrong, you -must- include the actual scenario in your evaluation. Of course, you don't. You just drop it, and act like misstating the issue at hand, and addressing something else entirely, has any relevance.
Of course, that is all just "logic". Just that "logic" the rules of which are established by the last 2000 years of philosophy, and are, at this point, unarguable.
You must be simply trolling me. I cannot believe anyone can be as stupid as you are exhibiting, repeatedly. Anyway, again, there's no benefit possible to discussion with you, for anyone. Maybe you'll succeed in trolling me for one more post. Probably not.
Yes, once again, the facts are all I've got.
That mass-murder as an alternative would be worse, is a fact. That you advocating this alternative makes you the only evil party to this discussion, is a fact. That you're irrational for thinking you need to back nothing you say and expect automatic agreement, is a fact. That there there is no such thing as a "logic" that becomes wrong, when it's shown right and rationally uncontested, by your addition of quotation marks, is a fact.
You are clearly untroubled by being contrary to the facts. So be it, but there is nothing to be gained from discussion with you in any respect.
And snow is cold, and 2+2=4, and all other true things are true.
Great point. Good luck with the brain damage.
Well, all I can say is that you exhibit an astonishing level of repetitive idiocy, and advise you to never take a Philosophy class at any level, as you would be destined to fail.
Logic works how it does. True statements work how they do. Pointing out over and over again a true statement, does nothing but show as your "example" a true statement--and in this case, exhibit one for which you possess not the slightest capability to argue on counterindicate on any level.
And yes, I guarantee any Philo 101 professor, upon you repeating the same thing for the dozenth time with no backing of your position, as if everyone should fall in line with you and agree for no reason whatsoever, will result in him calling you an idiot with exactly as much accuracy as I do. That is, absolute accuracy, according to the entire history of logic. And for the record, there is no "logic" to be made false by you adding quotation marks, idiot, there is only logic, and the illogical. You fall into the latter category.
Enjoy.