I (and others apparantly) do.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!
--ZK
I (and others apparantly) do.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!
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.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....
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
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?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.
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.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.
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
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).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 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.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.
It is NOT the "very definition of circular reasoning". It is the defintion of "relativity".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.
Originally posted by jeremiah
Either you raped and that was wrong: or you murdered the entire human race and that was wrong.
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:Originally posted by claire
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"
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 looksRaping a person under even a "save the world" scenario would not be a reasonable thing to do
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!
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.
before Zakath acknowledges what he is saying?My evidence to you was not based upon what we don’t know, but upon what we do know
Too rightOriginally posted by DEVO
The audience is the real winner!