Corporal Punishment (Re: Our response to Dmytri Kleiner's misunderstanding of money

[MoonShadow]

That book is not my only consideration.  We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic.  I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.

Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.

I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, because I don't consider faith something that can be proven or falsified.  I just don't have that debate, and I have zero interest in spinning my wheels while listening to you attempt the impossible.

It's nothing personal, I've learned long ago that this is a topic best left unsaid.

[myrkul]

That book is not my only consideration.  We literally don't have the time, nor the bandwidth, to explore this topic.  I don't have the will to discuss my faith path with anyone on an Internet forum, either.

Translation: I'm afraid you'll prove me wrong.

Well, I can't say I'm surprised. Good bye.

I'm not afraid of being proven wrong, because I don't consider faith something that can be proven or falsified.  I just don't have that debate, and I have zero interest in spinning my wheels while listening to you attempt the impossible.

It's nothing personal, I've learned long ago that this is a topic best left unsaid.

But hypocrisy is something that can be proven... and by picking and choosing what you accept from the Bible as acceptable practices when dealing with children, specifically, considering beating the child as acceptable (because the bible approves) , and not infanticide as not acceptable (even though the bible approves, in certain circumstances, at least), proves your hypocrisy.

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

[cunicula]

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?
Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.

[myrkul]

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?

If he is not, then he should see the error of pointing to the Bible and saying "See, the book says I can!"

Either you use your own logic, or you use someone else's. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.

That's the best part about literal interpretation of the bible. You can justify anything by saying "See, the book says I can!"

[cunicula]

I don't challenge your faith. I challenge how true to your faith you are.

Shit, if he is completely true to a literal interpretation of the bible, then he is a complete idiot. Is that what your are trying to falsify?

If he is not, then he should see the error of pointing to the Bible and saying "See, the book says I can!"

Either you use your own logic, or you use someone else's. Anything else is hypocrisy.

Anyways, the bible is contradictory, so I don't see how it would even be feasible to meet your test.

That's the best part about literal interpretation of the bible. You can justify anything by saying "See, the book says I can!"

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

[cunicula]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

Or he is using his own personal faith. A faith that is unique to his individual relationship with God. Based on this personal faith, he chooses what is right and wrong.

I certainly hope this is the case. That is more like my interpretation of morality, except I cut out the God part and just have faith in my own emotions.

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

Or he is using his own personal faith. A faith that is unique to his individual relationship with God. Based on this personal faith, he chooses what is right and wrong.

I'm afraid the available evidence doesn't back that up.

Sorry to break it to you, but pimping out children is verboten, while spanking of errant children is specificly encouraged by the old documents on those topics.

He based this argument on the Bible. I'm afraid his faith is most likely lacking, if he refers to the Bible only for some adult/child interactions, and not all.

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

your logical fallacy is...

(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).

That's only true if there are actually more than two options. A mix of faith and logic self-detonates. (In other words, Your logical fallacy is...)

[myrkul]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

your logical fallacy is...

(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).

That's only true if there are actually more than two options. A mix of faith and logic self-detonates. (In other words, Your logical fallacy is...)

middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....

I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.

I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.

[cunicula]

Doesn't it seem a bit absurd to ask someone to justify a faith-based set of moral rules? If you could do that, then what would you need faith for?

That's my point.... He's either using faith, and taking the bible whole cloth, or reason, and choosing for himself what is right and wrong. If he is choosing for himself, then his logic needs work. If he is basing it on faith, then his faith is lacking.

your logical fallacy is...

(By the way, you really need to work on this one. It's not the first time I've had to point out your "either-or" reasoning).

That's only true if there are actually more than two options. A mix of faith and logic self-detonates. (In other words, Your logical fallacy is...)

middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....

I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.

I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

[myrkul]

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

Feel free to share yours.

[myrkul]

middle ground
You claimed that a compromise, or middle point, between two extremes must be the truth....

I made no such claim. I merely pointed out your black-or-white thinking. You failed to negate the possibility of the existence of other options. For example, that Moonshadow might rely on faith only in some situations, e.g.: regarding moral issues that cannot be resolved purely with logic. You're getting sloppy, Myrkul.

I've yet to find any moral issues that cannot be solved with logic... Typically the logical premise: "If I don't like this, I should not subject another to it." As I said, a reality view based partly on faith and partly on logic fails miserably.

We've covered this before... Morality != "code of ethics". If they were equivalent, then machines could be programmed with such a 'code' to act morally, and they could pass the Turing Test. Any "moral issue" that can be solved using logic is not really a moral issue.

Pose me a moral question, then, that cannot be solved using logic. Prove your assertion.

[cunicula]

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

Feel free to share yours.

Mine is completely subjective. I know it when I see it. I've seen a whole lot of it in your posts.

[myrkul]

Define fail. I think we must have very different definitions.

Feel free to share yours.

Mine is completely subjective. I know it when I see it. I've seen a whole lot of it in your posts.

Perhaps, at this juncture, we should define what we're talking about. I was under the impression we were speaking of "logic," but this post leads me to believe you were talking about morality, which, given your opinion of Stefan Molyneux, I can assure you we do not share in the least.

[MoonShadow]

This discusion about the logic of morality is off topic.  I either of you really wish to have such a debate, start another thread.

[cunicula]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled. This is what I came up with from the wikipedia talk page. Sounds like a libertarian version of Scientology. Pathetic to say the least.

My experience of 'Free'domain was a huge disappointment. It looked interesting at first since there was a lot of talk about philosophy. I had only posted about 30 times when I was sent an email from Stefan Molyneux telling me not to post on the website anymore. He cited the fact that he did not like some of the sceptical problems I raised [about knowing about one's own existence and the nature of 'proof' - hardly controversial issues to those who've done any epistemology] and the fact that my theistic perspectives were not welcome. I think the site needs to make it much clearer to everyone that they only allow atheists on their site since there's nothing very 'free' about that practice. You can only call most of the account holders on his site 'disciples' since they behave this way. Instead of engaging me in discussion they chose instead to cite books that Stefan has written [implying that once I've read them I'll see the error of my ways]. Most of them had nothing serious to say on almost any of the topics on there. I teach secondary school and by comparison I would say that most posts are akin to where my 13 year olds are in their academic careers. Then there's all the posts from Stefan Molyneux asking for more money. I was quite impressed at first to see that some people were 'Philosopher Kings' on the website and thought this may be due to some academic achievement. How silly! One gets to be a 'Philosopher King' [whether you're male or female btw] by donating more than $500 per month! I think that pretty much says it all. After all that should you want an account on the site make sure you don't say anything remotely in support of theism, do not question political anarchy and NEVER, I repeat, NEVER say anything which questions Stefan Molyneux in the slightest. That way you may last a few days longer than me! The site needs a renaming - I suggest: 'StefanitesDomain' or 'FacistDomain' or 'DictatorshipDomain' or 'Totalitarian'Domain but certainly nothing with the word free in it.

[myrkul]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.

I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.

[cunicula]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.

I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.

That was just based on a video you linked to. I didn't realize you were a 'disciple.'

[myrkul]

Hmm. Never heard of him, so I googled.

I must have you confused with a different statist asshole that called him a "piece of shit" then.

You all start sounding alike after a while.

That was just based on a video you linked to. I didn't realize you were a 'disciple.'

I agree with his philosophy. I do not follow it blindly.