Much obliged.Originally posted by heusdens
Zorkewl:
So sorry to forget about interpunction. I will keep my sentences shorter.
Much obliged.Originally posted by heusdens
Zorkewl:
So sorry to forget about interpunction. I will keep my sentences shorter.
Originally posted by novice
Doesn't Zakath claim he is a former pastor?
Why would Zakath lob Bob such a softball in his "Argument from Nonbelief"???
OYJ: I was wondering about that myself. It almost sounds like a joke. I can't help but wonder if he kept a straight face while he was typing it.
I think Bob did do this. He basically said that rape is always wrong. He said that it is better for the entire human race to become extinct than for a person to be raped. This seems pretty clear to me.Originally posted by shima
Bob's refusal to state his "Absolute Moral Values/Laws/Rules" is a weakness on his part. He knows that, whatever he presents as absolute, Zakath will not have a hard time trying to counter them with circumstances in which Bob's supposedly "Absolute values" will fail. This will disprove Bob's arguement rather nicely, and Bob knows this will happen, hence his refusal to state them.
He said that it is better for the entire human race to become extinct than for a person to be raped.
Originally posted by shima
Good. Now, can he prove that it is always wrong? If he cannot, then it is just Bob's opinion against mine, because I think its not wrong to rape a woman to save the human race.
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Rape is always wrong.
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Rape is wrong regardless of what country it happens in, or who does it.
Originally posted by heusdens
And the "hypothetical rape to save the human race" argument, is not something of consideration, since a lot of actual rapes occur, which ARE worth considering, so why would we bother hypothetical crimes that are not even committed then?
Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
Maybe you should ask shima and Zakath that, since they're the ones using that argument.
Because if one is going to propose a set of moral absolutes, then they must be absolute in every conceiveble circumstance. The "save the world" scenario demonstrates a circumstance where the morality of rape becomes relative, because you must weigh it against the extinction of the species. Many, including me, would say it is acceptable to rape in this one, extreme circumstance. Therefore it's not a moral absolute, despite the fact that Bob has asserted that it is. It demonstrates Bob's short-sightedness. It may be absolute for him, but not for everyone.Originally posted by heusdens
And the "hypothetical rape to save the human race" argument, is not something of consideration, since a lot of actual rapes occur, which ARE worth considering, so why would we bother hypothetical crimes that are not even committed then?
This is a rather tortured hypothetic.Originally posted by ZroKewl
Regarding the rape thing:
What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.
But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?
--ZK
Originally posted by LightSon
This is a rather tortured hypothetic.
Let me see if I understand this. If I argue that killing someone in self defense is justified, then you are asserting a similar rationale that raping someone in self defense is justified. :doh:
That does not follow. Sorry. It is one thing to defend yourself; it is another thing to use such defense as a pretext to have your perverted jollies.
Originally posted by ZroKewl
Regarding the rape thing:
What's funny is that I'm assuming that Bob, Knight, & others would say that murder is worse than rape. Correct me if I'm wrong here. However, they would also say that self-defense makes killing someone not murder. So, if someone is about to kill you -- even if they aren't currently able to stop themselves and are not directly responsible for their actions that are about to lead to your death (be creative) -- then if you kill that person it is ok.
But, if you rape someone (even if they were somehow guilty of about to directly cause the termination of all humanity), then that can't ever be self defense?