Right-wing fundamentalist's dilemma

[Guest Paul]

What's fair about suing doctors, scientists, drug companies, hospitals, etc.?

You want to punish them.  Right, Paul?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, the purpose is compensation for a person who has been wrongly injured. It is explicitly not to punish the wrong-doer. That’s in the jury instructions. Besides, why would I want to punish someone? That is not my way.

Now I suppose you’re going to argue I punished David Paszkiewicz. No I didn’t. He got himself into a mess, and we gave him many opportunities to get out. Even after he stood by and watched Matthew being attacked without intervening to stop the attacks, we did not ask for his firing. Paszkiewicz has never apologized for what he did; exactly the opposite, he argued vociferously that he was entirely in the right, and accused my son of setting him up --- with his own words, which is absurd. He violated the law and undermined the science curriculum. He did real damage to the education of those students. I’m not interested in punishing him, but I do wish he would understand this because he has some real abilities. But he must follow the law and abide by the curriculum, just like all the other teachers.

Getting back to my law practice: If you were injured as some of my clients have been, and needed money to make ends meet, you might not be so quick to condemn what I do. In addition to that, we have made a real difference in the way doctors practice medicine. There’s a lot of whining about unnecessary tests, but doctors have tightened up their practices as a result of our work. What you call an unnecessary test for 100 people may save one life --- if the doctors weren’t concerned about that, it wouldn’t occur to them to do that test. We’ve made doctors more careful by internalizing to their insurance carriers the true costs of not being careful.

The field of product liability has been all but eliminated because product manufacturers have been more careful about how they make their products. We see very few products cases any more, for that reason. While there are many in my field who try to take advantage of the system, that is also true in other fields. I’m very proud of the work I do, and the results my colleagues and I have accomplished, both for individuals and for society.

By the way, I've never sued a scientist. What are you referring to?

So to answer your question, what's fair about the lawsuits I bring is two things:

1. It restores a wrongly injured person to some semblance of the position he was in before the injury. Money is not a perfect remedy, but it is the remedy we have. So it's fair on an individual level.

2. It makes the world a little better by making practitioners, manufacturers, etc., more careful. So it's fair on a societal level. You can argue that you don't like paying higher prices for your products, but I don't think you'd be saying that if you were a quadriplegic injured by a defective product and had no means of supporting yourself. No one ever thinks they're going to be the one injured, but I've seen people who have changed their tune after they were.

Besides, I can hardly see how personal attacks on me have anything to do with these discussions. Apparently I’ve gotten under your skin. It’s your skin, and I’m not actually under it.

[Bryan]

I'll answer Bryan's one legitimate question, which is "why isn't it fair" that Mustapha have a greater opportunity to obtain salvation than Hassan.

Oh, goody. 'Cause that one can't be answered without answering my final question (unless Paul assumes somebody else's moral frame of reference for the sake of argument).

The answer seems obvious. We're talking about someone's eternal fate according to this bizarre story. If those are the stakes, fairness dictates that everyone have an equal chance.

You're begging the question, Paul. It can't be unfair because it's not fair without a logical fallacy (circular reasoning).

You need to explain why it isn't fair, which is probably going to require you to justify your "objective" and "universal" moral framework.

In fact, considering the stakes, everyone should have as many chances as are possible, including multiple lifetimes if necessary.

Well, why wouldn't an infinite number of chances be possible? Why even bother with multiple lifetimes, since hell as a place of eternal torment appears to require a form of eternal life for all?

One step at a time: Affirm or deny that an infinite number of chances is possible in principle under the assumption of eternity (which is an assumption you've already made for the sake of describing hell).

Silly, eh?

Look, you guys can't have it both ways, arguing on the one hand that fairness is everything, and then saying unfairness is OK whenever it suits your purposes.

1) Where did I ever argue that fairness is everything (is this yet another item in Paul's arsenal of the imagination?)? Paul's argument, as I recall, was that hell isn't fair. Now he seems to want to change his argument so that he can accuse God of unfairness if Suzie's fingernails are prettier than Amy's (for example). Why bother with hell, then? Just stick with the fingernails.

2) In this case, there's no reason why I can't allow that something is unfair, since the argument was that hell is unfair. I'm continuing to address that argument.

3) Finally, I allowed that there is a sense in which allowing any to escape the fate of hell is unjust--I don't think that my statement should automatically be taken as a contradiction of the justice of God, since I specifically stated that God ensured that the solution met the requirements of justice.

4) Yet, regardless of 1-3 we have Paul playing another one of his nonsensical rhetorical games. Astounding (he's supposed to be a lawyer).

You're still not addressing my main point which is: on what basis do you assume that a morally superior god would be as narrow in his thinking as you are in yours.

I don't recall arguing that a morally superior god would be as narrow in his thinking as I am in mine. Could you refresh my memory with a quotation?

Lacking the quotation, I'd be justified in thinking you're engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

Here's the basis on which I assume that god's morality permits hell to be just:

1) I was asked to provide an explanation for how hell could be just.

2) I addressed #1 by borrowing the traditional theological picture of God (granted, not the Calvinist notion)--which seemed fitting since traditional Christianity seems to be what Paul was arguing against.

3) Can Paul explain why my method is not acceptable, rather than simply making an insinuation?

Now, it's quite possible--even likely--that Paul's objection attempts to address the foundation of morality, attempting to sit in judgment of the moral framework I've offered. If that's the case, then Paul is doing exactly what he faults others for doing: Judging morality on a narrow basis without justification--except that he's not answering a question about how hell might not be just--he's supposedly trying to argue that it cannot be just.

In short, we find Paul engaged in hypocrisy. It appears that it is fine for Paul to assume his moral foundation without explaining it, but he faults others for attempting to exercise even a hint of that privilege.

You can't have it both ways, Paul. Either a given framework of morality can be assumed without argument or it cannot.

If it cannot, then you have some explaining to do (silly, eh?).

If it can, then you should stop your whining.

You've squeezed all the values out of God, including Love, and you still don't see the problem.

Well, given that you have not attempted to explain the problem with anything even remotely approaching coherence, I don't see how you can complain.

I thought I made a good case for god's love when I noted that it wasn't fair that anybody at all escaped the flames of hell. Apparently Paul doesn't see it that way, but it was hard to tell since he shifted to the argument that god wasn't fair regardless of hell. Next he'll be moaning that some people are born in frozen parts of Alaska while others are born in the south of France. Oh, the injustice!

I told you many times that the basis for objective and universal morality is our humanity itself.

I've explained to you how that fails to follow based on David Hume's arguments (is/ought divide), and based on your appeal to a tautology.

You've failed to offer a substantive justification in the face of my (if I do say so myself) dauntingly powerful riposte.

And now you're back to repeating your conclusion as though it hasn't been undermined.

Is that any way to engage in a reasonable debate? Perhaps you do not understand how I have eviscerated your position?

If you don't want to believe it, then don't, but I know it to be the basis for the best system I have yet seen.

Great. That saves me the trouble of having to point out that your moral system ultimately boils down to your personal tastes.

The only other observation I'll make here is that I am very glad to have been "saved" from Bryan's dark vision of the world and the people in it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But what happens when you open your eyes?

[Bryan]

I stopped reading right there. How, then, do you explain Jesus hanging out with all those prostitutes and other sinners, and learning from him?

Again, you mean?

Jesus appeared as a man, not as the glory of God. Note God's words to Moses in Exodus 33. Note also the account of the transfiguration of Jesus.

Really, Bryan, your arguments are quite childish.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One wonders what type of Catholic you were for twenty years if you need these issues explained. The objections makes sense from somebody who knows very little of theology or the Bible.

[Guest Paul]

1. Because his beliefs were sincere, why is it “fair” for Hassan to be punished at all?

"Paul, lots of people "sincerely" believe false things, but that does not change the truthfulness of what they believe. The object of faith is what determines whether a religion is true or false, not the sincerety of its adherents."

Unfortunately for some, God is like the courts of the United States, "Ignorance is no excuse before the law." Are the courts of the US also unjust?

Concerning "those who have never heard," I dealt with that in some detail in a previous reply. Your story was tragic, however, the truth is what it is:

God provided 5 witnesses to himself:

1. Nature

2. Man's Conscience.

3. The Hebrew Prophets.

4. Recorded Scripture

5. Jesus Christ Himself

By the way, even the Quran witnesses to the resurection of Jesus. (Surah 4:157-8)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The reason for "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is that we have made a policy decision that we cannot afford to allow people to claim ignorance. We know it's an imperfect resolution and results in a certain amount of injustice, but it's the best resolution we have available.

By contrast, "God" would have the power to reveal himself to each of us individually, personally and unmistakably. There is no reason for imperfection, and especially in a case like this where the stakes are so high, eternally tormenting someone for an honest mistake would be extremely unjust. To return to our criminal laws, we only punish people criminally when they evidence a criminal dangerousness. There is good reason, for example, to know that murder is wrong with or without a law against it. There is none of that in sincerely believing another religion. For those reasons, the analogy is not persuasive to me.

You say that God reveals himself through nature, but when I look at nature I see a lot of unnecessary and pointless misery that wouldn't be the product of an almighty god. So I respectfully disagree with you. Your claims are just that, claims. Your question about "ignorance of the law" is a good one, though. I hope my answer was helpful.

[Guest Paul]

1. Because his beliefs were sincere, why is it “fair” for Hassan to be punished at all?

"Paul, lots of people "sincerely" believe false things, but that does not change the truthfulness of what they believe. The object of faith is what determines whether a religion is true or false, not the sincerety of its adherents."

Unfortunately for some, God is like the courts of the United States, "Ignorance is no excuse before the law." Are the courts of the US also unjust?

Concerning "those who have never heard," I dealt with that in some detail in a previous reply. Your story was tragic, however, the truth is what it is:

God provided 5 witnesses to himself:

1. Nature

2. Man's Conscience.

3. The Hebrew Prophets.

4. Recorded Scripture

5. Jesus Christ Himself

By the way, even the Quran witnesses to the resurection of Jesus. (Surah 4:157-8)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's another problem with your argument. People can look up the law. There aren't competing versions of it, and the existence of a legislature that makes laws is universally known. By contrast, there are competing scriptures, and no known source of any of them except that some people decided to write those stories. So there really is no valid comparison.

[Guest Guest]

(1) QUOTE

The answer seems obvious. We're talking about someone's eternal fate according to this bizarre story. If those are the stakes, fairness dictates that everyone have an equal chance.

You're begging the question, Paul. It can't be unfair because it's not fair without a logical fallacy (circular reasoning).

(2) I don't recall arguing that a morally superior god would be as narrow in his thinking as I am in mine. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(1) Pointing out the obvious is not begging the question.

(2) Of course you don't. You don't realize how narrow your thinking is.

[Guest Guest]

No, the purpose is compensation for a person who has been wrongly injured. It is explicitly not to punish the wrong-doer. That’s in the jury instructions. Besides, why would I want to punish someone? That is not my way.

Now I suppose you’re going to argue I punished David Paszkiewicz. No I didn’t. He got himself into a mess, and we gave him many opportunities to get out. Even after he stood by and watched Matthew being attacked without intervening to stop the attacks, we did not ask for his firing. Paszkiewicz has never apologized for what he did; exactly the opposite, he argued vociferously that he was entirely in the right, and accused my son of setting him up --- with his own words, which is absurd. He violated the law and undermined the science curriculum. He did real damage to the education of those students. I’m not interested in punishing him, but I do wish he would understand this because he has some real abilities. But he must follow the law and abide by the curriculum, just like all the other teachers.

Getting back to my law practice: If you were injured as some of my clients have been, and needed money to make ends meet, you might not be so quick to condemn what I do. In addition to that, we have made a real difference in the way doctors practice medicine. There’s a lot of whining about unnecessary tests, but doctors have tightened up their practices as a result of our work. What you call an unnecessary test for 100 people may save one life --- if the doctors weren’t concerned about that, it wouldn’t occur to them to do that test. We’ve made doctors more careful by internalizing to their insurance carriers the true costs of not being careful.

The field of product liability has been all but eliminated because product manufacturers have been more careful about how they make their products. We see very few products cases any more, for that reason. While there are many in my field who try to take advantage of the system, that is also true in other fields. I’m very proud of the work I do, and the results my colleagues and I have accomplished, both for individuals and for society.

By the way, I've never sued a scientist. What are you referring to?

So to answer your question, what's fair about the lawsuits I bring is two things:

1. It restores a wrongly injured person to some semblance of the position he was in before the injury. Money is not a perfect remedy, but it is the remedy we have. So it's fair on an individual level.

2. It makes the world a little better by making practitioners, manufacturers, etc., more careful. So it's fair on a societal level. You can argue that you don't like paying higher prices for your products, but I don't think you'd be saying that if you were a quadriplegic injured by a defective product and had no means of supporting yourself. No one ever thinks they're going to be the one injured, but I've seen people who have changed their tune after they were.

Besides, I can hardly see how personal attacks on me have anything to do with these discussions. Apparently I’ve gotten under your skin. It’s your skin, and I’m not actually under it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about punitive damanges - as opposed to compensatory?

[Bryan]

(1) Pointing out the obvious is not begging the question.

For some reason, the various authorities do not include an exception for the allegedly obvious. Why do you think that is?

Begging The Question: Circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything. Since it can prove anything, it can obviously prove the above statement. Since it can prove the first statement, it must be true. Therefore, circular reasoning is the best fallacy and is capable of proving anything.

http://www2.norwich.edu/mkabay/overviews/l...l_fallacies.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=YY41cKhms...LdO19P-Fonjr3Sc

This is the one you need to read, I think:

2) begging the question: Assuming that audience members share basic assumptions and beliefs with the arguer when in fact they don't can seriously weaken an argument, even one that is founded on sound principles. When you spot someone using certain phrases—“Everyone knows,” “We all agree,” or “It's obvious that”—or smoothly trying to pass off as fact a statement that is no more than an opinion, you're encountering a question-begging argument. If you don't quickly challenge the arguer, you may find yourself being hustled along to conclusions you don't want to reach. Universal statements should be avoided, except in extreme circumstances.

(2) Of course you don't. You don't realize how narrow your thinking is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And "everyone knows" that my thinking is narrow--is that it?

[Bryan]

The reason for "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is that we have made a policy decision that we cannot afford to allow people to claim ignorance.

(IOW, it doesn't work)

By contrast, "God" would have the power to reveal himself to each of us individually, personally and unmistakably.

If it were unmistakable, then god would have interfered with the human will, wouldn't he? You are suggesting that it should be absolutely impossible not to believe in god, aren't you?

There is no reason for imperfection, and especially in a case like this where the stakes are so high, eternally tormenting someone for an honest mistake would be extremely unjust.

Explain how a morally bad decision can be (accurately) called an "honest mistake"? Doesn't that beg the question of whether or not the decision for ill was morally wrong?

You say that God reveals himself through nature, but when I look at nature I see a lot of unnecessary and pointless misery that wouldn't be the product of an almighty god.

And Paul can support his argument.

No, really.

[Guest Guest]

No, the purpose is compensation for a person who has been wrongly injured. It is explicitly not to punish the wrong-doer. That’s in the jury instructions. Besides, why would I want to punish someone? That is not my way.

Now I suppose you’re going to argue I punished David Paszkiewicz. No I didn’t. He got himself into a mess, and we gave him many opportunities to get out. Even after he stood by and watched Matthew being attacked without intervening to stop the attacks, we did not ask for his firing. Paszkiewicz has never apologized for what he did; exactly the opposite, he argued vociferously that he was entirely in the right, and accused my son of setting him up --- with his own words, which is absurd. He violated the law and undermined the science curriculum. He did real damage to the education of those students. I’m not interested in punishing him, but I do wish he would understand this because he has some real abilities. But he must follow the law and abide by the curriculum, just like all the other teachers.

Getting back to my law practice: If you were injured as some of my clients have been, and needed money to make ends meet, you might not be so quick to condemn what I do. In addition to that, we have made a real difference in the way doctors practice medicine. There’s a lot of whining about unnecessary tests, but doctors have tightened up their practices as a result of our work. What you call an unnecessary test for 100 people may save one life --- if the doctors weren’t concerned about that, it wouldn’t occur to them to do that test. We’ve made doctors more careful by internalizing to their insurance carriers the true costs of not being careful.

The field of product liability has been all but eliminated because product manufacturers have been more careful about how they make their products. We see very few products cases any more, for that reason. While there are many in my field who try to take advantage of the system, that is also true in other fields. I’m very proud of the work I do, and the results my colleagues and I have accomplished, both for individuals and for society.

By the way, I've never sued a scientist. What are you referring to?

So to answer your question, what's fair about the lawsuits I bring is two things:

1. It restores a wrongly injured person to some semblance of the position he was in before the injury. Money is not a perfect remedy, but it is the remedy we have. So it's fair on an individual level.

2. It makes the world a little better by making practitioners, manufacturers, etc., more careful. So it's fair on a societal level. You can argue that you don't like paying higher prices for your products, but I don't think you'd be saying that if you were a quadriplegic injured by a defective product and had no means of supporting yourself. No one ever thinks they're going to be the one injured, but I've seen people who have changed their tune after they were.

Besides, I can hardly see how personal attacks on me have anything to do with these discussions. Apparently I’ve gotten under your skin. It’s your skin, and I’m not actually under it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can rationalize it any way you like. You sue for money to punish. There are certainly cases where a person deserves to be compensated. However, the law profession has turned this into a multi-billion dollar industry. As it relates to doctors and drug companies, it's lawsuits that have caused costs to the consumer to skyrocket. Sometimes I'm amazed that anyone would want to become a doctor or that a company would want to research and develop a new drug with lawyers just waiting to pounce.

I suggest you watch a little daytime or late night television and take a look a some of the wonderful peers you have in your profession. I'm sure you and your firm only take legit cases.

[Bryan]

No, the purpose is compensation for a person who has been wrongly injured.

How about a nickel? Why not $3 billion?

Paul overlooks the application: Hell is about justice--not punishment.

It is explicitly not to punish the wrong-doer. That’s in the jury instructions. Besides, why would I want to punish someone? That is not my way.

The way you appeared to claim as your own seemed to amount to giving the thief the candlesticks so that his heart would change.

Yet here you are suing him for the cost of the candlesticks, from what I can tell.

Can you explain the discrepancy between your sermon and your behavior?

Now I suppose you’re going to argue I punished David Paszkiewicz.

Well, you didn't exactly bring him the candlesticks.

No I didn’t. He got himself into a mess, and we gave him many opportunities to get out.

Why did you give up on him? I seem to remember you saying that god could not give up on somebody (apparently it wouldn't be just), but you seem to have given up.

Can you explain the discrepancy between your sermon and your behavior?

Even after he stood by and watched Matthew being attacked without intervening to stop the attacks, we did not ask for his firing.

What attacks on Matthew did Paszkiewicz watch without intervening?

If the attacks were physical, then you have good reason to complain, but if they were verbal and not obscene, then I doubt that intervention would have helped unless those who spoke to Matthew were punished (relatively severely) for their non-obscene speech (welcome to the United States of America!).

I wonder what course of action LaClair would recommend?

Paszkiewicz has never apologized for what he did; exactly the opposite, he argued vociferously that he was entirely in the right, and accused my son of setting him up --- with his own words, which is absurd.

Paul, you seem to be making stuff up again.

Where did Paszkiewicz argue (at all, much less "vociferously") that he was entirely in the right? Do you refer to the office meeting with Somma, Woods, and young LaClair? In that meeting, Paszkiewicz defended himself from a string of charges based on statements taken out of context (with some of the statements apparently altered to the point of inaccuracy regardless of the context--for example the alleged claim that evolution wasn't science).

He violated the law and undermined the science curriculum.

I don't think so, in either case--but you certainly seem to enjoy repeating yourself on that point regardless of the presumption of innocence.

A newspaper would place itself in danger of libel with that statement. Paul's willing to risk it.

He did real damage to the education of those students. I’m not interested in punishing him, but I do wish he would understand this because he has some real abilities. But he must follow the law and abide by the curriculum, just like all the other teachers.

So where's the candelabras?

Getting back to my law practice: If you were injured as some of my clients have been, and needed money to make ends meet, you might not be so quick to condemn what I do.

Paul, Paul, Paul. You're playing the victim on this one (poor Paul! He has been condemned for being a lawyer!)? I think your law practice fits wonderfully with my view of justice. You go, kid!

My problem is that your law practice doesn't fit with your supposed view of justice. I can't understand why you stick with a job that appears to fundamentally violate your principles. It's not about attacking what you do, per se.

I won't presume to speak for RLE, but I suspect he was pursuing the same point.

In addition to that, we have made a real difference in the way doctors practice medicine.

That is certainly true. No doctor will proceed on even a routine surgery without a series of probably needless diagnostic tests--tests primarily needed to protect against the threat of lawsuit. As a result, medical costs increase for all (but at least it creates a good market for MRI machines).

There’s a lot of whining about unnecessary tests, but doctors have tightened up their practices as a result of our work. What you call an unnecessary test for 100 people may save one life --- if the doctors weren’t concerned about that, it wouldn’t occur to them to do that test. We’ve made doctors more careful by internalizing to their insurance carriers the true costs of not being careful.

That's some brain-dead economics, there. Insurance carriers aren't great big banks that exist to pay for medical care. They exist to allow people to share risk (usually on a voluntary basis unless the government mandates otherwise). The diagnostics Paul claims that people are whining about are one of the big reasons why the average Joe can't afford health insurance. For you, Paul has a message: Shut it, you bunch of whiners!

As he castigates them for whining, one can imagine him thinking Anyway, I got mine.

Oh, and he did all of you a favor by forcing the risk of that 1-in-100 (100 out of thousands on top of that) on all of you. Got that? Great.

The field of product liability has been all but eliminated because product manufacturers have been more careful about how they make their products.

I liked the lawn darts with the three-foot razor-sharp tip.

We see very few products cases any more, for that reason. While there are many in my field who try to take advantage of the system, that is also true in other fields. I’m very proud of the work I do, and the results my colleagues and I have accomplished, both for individuals and for society.

And if people have lost freedom as a result, who cares? It's for the greater good, comrades!

So to answer your question, what's fair about the lawsuits I bring is two things:

1. It restores a wrongly injured person to some semblance of the position he was in before the injury.

Couldn't you do that out-of-pocket (candlesticks!)? Why does the guy who injured him have to do it, if real justice is unending forgiveness? Why aren't you counseling the injured party to get on with his life as is so that the heart of the other will change? Isn't that more consistent with your view of justice?

Money is not a perfect remedy, but it is the remedy we have. So it's fair on an individual level.

Hell is done on an individual level, but you don't seem to think that's fair for some reason.

2. It makes the world a little better by making practitioners, manufacturers, etc., more careful.

Hell makes Heaven a little better by making the murderers (and other socially problematic types) much more careful.

So it's fair on a societal level. You can argue that you don't like paying higher prices for your products, but I don't think you'd be saying that if you were a quadriplegic injured by a defective product and had no means of supporting yourself. No one ever thinks they're going to be the one injured, but I've seen people who have changed their tune after they were.

Some of you will be surprised to learn that many lawyers have preferred medical providers for their liability cases. Those medical providers do a good job of ensuring that medical costs for the patient are high.

What's the point of that, some of you might wonder? Simple, really. If the medical costs are high, then the attorney can justify suing for more $, and he gets a cut of that. The medical provider and the lawyer get money. The patient got inefficient medical care. The insurance company or the party supposedly at fault gets the shaft.

But I digress. Paul's doing a wonderful job, on balance of justifying his profession in terms of the scales of justice--a concept he says he doesn't buy.

How does he explain the discrepancy?

Besides, I can hardly see how personal attacks on me have anything to do with these discussions. Apparently I’ve gotten under your skin. It’s your skin, and I’m not actually under it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it that Paul doesn't see how he is being inconsistent, or is it just that resorting to personal attacks comes naturally to him?

[Bryan]

There's another problem with your argument. People can look up the law. There aren't competing versions of it, and the existence of a legislature that makes laws is universally known.

Huh? Is the law the same in the United States and China? Or even Mexico? Legislatures are a dime a dozen.

By contrast, there are competing scriptures, and no known source of any of them except that some people decided to write those stories. So there really is no valid comparison.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Would legislatures be invalid if their membership were secret?

[Guest Paul]

(IOW, it doesn't work)

If it were unmistakable, then god would have interfered with the human will, wouldn't he?  You are suggesting that it should be absolutely impossible not to believe in god, aren't you?

Explain how a morally bad decision can be (accurately) called an "honest mistake"?  Doesn't that beg the question of whether or not the decision for ill was morally wrong?

And Paul can support his argument.

No, really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So in a single post Bryan tells us that making the fact of God's existence clear removes all free will as to whether we would believe in him, and that deciding to be a Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Humanist or anything but a Christian is a "morally bad decision." As to the first, obvious things are pointed out to Bryan all the time. He manages through extraordinary acts of (free) will not to believe them.

[Guest Paul]

You can rationalize it any way you like.  You sue for money to punish.  There are certainly cases where a person deserves to be compensated.  However, the law profession has turned this into a multi-billion dollar industry.  As it relates to doctors and drug companies, it's lawsuits that have caused costs to the consumer to skyrocket.  Sometimes I'm amazed that anyone would want to become a doctor or that a company would want to research and develop a new drug with lawyers just waiting to pounce.

I suggest you watch a little daytime or late night television and take a look a some of the wonderful peers you have in your profession.  I'm sure you and your firm only take legit cases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We are very careful about the cases we take, thank you. Integrity is important to me. I know more than enough about my peers and those ads. Kindly don't tar me with that brush. If you knew me, you wouldn't make that statement.

[Guest Paul]

Huh?  Is the law the same in the United States and China?  Or even Mexico?  Legislatures are a dime a dozen.

Would legislatures be invalid if their membership were secret?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A just act serves a purpose. If it serves no purpose, it has no point and therefore is not just. What purpose would eternal torment serve? I keep asking this question, but no one seems able to answer it. Of course not. There is no answer because it serves no purpose. It is gratuitous suffering, which is not justice.

I wrote Paszkiewicz months ago asking him to contact me. The only time we met personally, in February at the Board meeting, I reached out to him and shook his hand. He knows the door is open. I haven’t given up on him at all. In fact, I said in the note I sent him that I expected reconciliation and a miracle that we would work together to create. That was in December. I haven’t gotten a response.

I suggest you read the two letters he wrote to the Kearny Observer. He defended himself and his proselytizing in both, denying however that is what it was.

From Bryan's next post comes this gem of an exchange:

QUOTE(Paul @ Jun 20 2007, 12:13 PM)

There's another problem with your argument. People can look up the law. There aren't competing versions of it, and the existence of a legislature that makes laws is universally known.

Bryan: “Huh? Is the law the same in the United States and China? Or even Mexico? Legislatures are a dime a dozen.”

When you’re in the USA, you obey the laws of the USA. When you’re China . . . good God (pardon the expression), do I really have to explain this?!

[Guest Guest]

Oh, goody.  'Cause that one can't be answered without answering my final question (unless Paul assumes somebody else's moral frame of reference for the sake of argument).

You're begging the question, Paul.  It can't be unfair because it's not fair without a logical fallacy (circular reasoning).

You need to explain why it isn't fair, which is probably going to require you to justify your "objective" and "universal" moral framework.

Well, why wouldn't an infinite number of chances be possible?  Why even bother with multiple lifetimes, since hell as a place of eternal torment appears to require a form of eternal life for all?

One step at a time:  Affirm or deny that an infinite number of chances is possible in principle under the assumption of eternity (which is an assumption you've already made for the sake of describing hell).

Silly, eh?

1)  Where did I ever argue that fairness is everything (is this yet another item in Paul's arsenal of the imagination?)?  Paul's argument, as I recall, was that hell isn't fair.  Now he seems to want to change his argument so that he can accuse God of unfairness if Suzie's fingernails are prettier than Amy's (for example).  Why bother with hell, then?  Just stick with the fingernails.

2)  In this case, there's no reason why I can't allow that something is unfair, since the argument was that hell is unfair.  I'm continuing to address that argument.

3)  Finally, I allowed that there is a sense in which allowing any to escape the fate of hell is unjust--I don't think that my statement should automatically be taken as a contradiction of the justice of God, since I specifically stated that God ensured that the solution met the requirements of justice.

4)  Yet, regardless of 1-3 we have Paul playing another one of his nonsensical rhetorical games.  Astounding (he's supposed to be a lawyer).

I don't recall arguing that a morally superior god would be as narrow in his thinking as I am in mine.  Could you refresh my memory with a quotation?

Lacking the quotation, I'd be justified in thinking you're engaging in an ad hominem fallacy.

Here's the basis on which I assume that god's morality permits hell to be just: 

1)  I was asked to provide an explanation for how hell could be just.

2)  I addressed #1 by borrowing the traditional theological picture of God (granted, not the Calvinist notion)--which seemed fitting since traditional Christianity seems to be what Paul was arguing against.

3)  Can Paul explain why my method is not acceptable, rather than simply making an insinuation?

Now, it's quite possible--even likely--that Paul's objection attempts to address the foundation of morality, attempting to sit in judgment of the moral framework I've offered.  If that's the case, then Paul is doing exactly what he faults others for doing:  Judging morality on a narrow basis without justification--except that he's not answering a question about how hell might not be just--he's supposedly trying to argue that it cannot be just.

In short, we find Paul engaged in hypocrisy.  It appears that it is fine for Paul to assume his moral foundation without explaining it, but he faults others for attempting to exercise even a hint of that privilege.

You can't have it both ways, Paul.  Either a given framework of morality can be assumed without argument or it cannot.

If it cannot, then you have some explaining to do (silly, eh?).

If it can, then you should stop your whining.

Well, given that you have not attempted to explain the problem with anything even remotely approaching coherence, I don't see how you can complain.

I thought I made a good case for god's love when I noted that it wasn't fair that anybody at all escaped the flames of hell.  Apparently Paul doesn't see it that way, but it was hard to tell since he shifted to the argument that god wasn't fair regardless of hell.  Next he'll be moaning that some people are born in frozen parts of Alaska while others are born in the south of France.  Oh, the injustice!

I've explained to you how that fails to follow based on David Hume's arguments (is/ought divide), and based on your appeal to a tautology.

You've failed to offer a substantive justification in the face of my (if I do say so myself) dauntingly powerful riposte.

And now you're back to repeating your conclusion as though it hasn't been undermined.

Is that any way to engage in a reasonable debate?  Perhaps you do not understand how I have eviscerated your position?

Great.  That saves me the trouble of having to point out that your moral system ultimately boils down to your personal tastes.

But what happens when you open your eyes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To understand justice you have to have a values system. You can't just insist on robot-like logic, especially when it isn't even logical.

[Guest 2smart4u]

You can rationalize it any way you like.  You sue for money to punish.  There are certainly cases where a person deserves to be compensated.  However, the law profession has turned this into a multi-billion dollar industry.  As it relates to doctors and drug companies, it's lawsuits that have caused costs to the consumer to skyrocket.  Sometimes I'm amazed that anyone would want to become a doctor or that a company would want to research and develop a new drug with lawyers just waiting to pounce.

I suggest you watch a little daytime or late night television and take a look a some of the wonderful peers you have in your profession.  I'm sure you and your firm only take legit cases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You give Paul too much credit. He's an ambulance chaser and judging by the time spent posting his endless nonsense on KOTW, he doesn't catch to many.

[Guest Guest]

You can rationalize it any way you like.  You sue for money to punish.  There are certainly cases where a person deserves to be compensated.  However, the law profession has turned this into a multi-billion dollar industry.  As it relates to doctors and drug companies, it's lawsuits that have caused costs to the consumer to skyrocket.  Sometimes I'm amazed that anyone would want to become a doctor or that a company would want to research and develop a new drug with lawyers just waiting to pounce.

I suggest you watch a little daytime or late night television and take a look a some of the wonderful peers you have in your profession.  I'm sure you and your firm only take legit cases.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So your argument is that trial lawyers are greedy, that they want money for themselves. That's not punishment. It's self-interest.

I know greedy doctors, too. In fact, there are greedy people in every field, including some of the clergy. That doesn't mean there aren't also good people in each of these fields who are truly motivated by a desire to help others. There's no reason why that can't include trial lawyers, and I'm sure it does. Some of them seem genuinely interested in helping the little guy.

I can understand not liking lawyers who manipulate the system, but that isn't limited to lawyers who bring personal injury lawsuits. I've never understood why people have such a gut-level dislike for lawyers who bring lawsuits for injured people, most of whom couldn't afford a lawyer to handle a case like that. These same people have no problem at all with lawyers who help huge corporations manipulate the system to screw all of us. Why the double standard?

[Guest Guest]

Hell is about justice--not punishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, that's your claim. So answer the question you've been asked over and over. Hell is eternal torment with no hope of redemption, ever. It doesn't help the person being tormented, it doesn't help anyone else, and it doesn't help God. If God needs to remove the person from others to keep the person from hurting them, then he will put the person in a place where he cannot harm them, or just take away their power to do harm. Maybe, given enough time, they'll change. After all, your Bible says that every head shall bow and every knee shall bend. If that happens, why not invite them back in? You can't make your free will argument when your own Bible says that everyone is going to do bow and bend. And if God is really God, you can't take anything away from him because he's God. He wouldn't need retribution. That's a human concept, and not a good one. The fact that you don't see that says something about your level of spiritual development, not about anything else. This idea of God getting his pound of flesh makes no sense. It's based on how people deal with each other in a finite world of scarce resources. How does burning someone's flesh without damaging it, and never changing that course, help anyone? And if it doesn't do any good, how can it be justice? You can't just claim that God has to have it that way for no good reason. God would have a reason, because according to you God is completely just. Justice isn't a dogmatic rule in a vacuum. It's what is best under all the circumstances. So how can eternal torment with no hope of redemption, even if the person repents and reforms, be justice?

That's the question.

Don't fight. Contemplate. Reflect. Think.

[Guest Guest]

Integrity is important to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Really??? Where did you leave your integrity when encouranging your son to record his teacher without his knowledge? Did you leave it at your office that day?

[Guest Guest]

I wrote Paszkiewicz months ago asking him to contact me. The only time we met personally, in February at the Board meeting, I reached out to him and shook his hand. He knows the door is open. I haven’t given up on him at all. In fact, I said in the note I sent him that I expected reconciliation and a miracle that we would work together to create. That was in December. I haven’t gotten a response.

I was at that meeting, I was right behind Mr. Paszkiewicz when his was leaving. He reached out to you. When he went down the stairs you were at the bottom against the wall with your family. He came to you and shook your hand and Mathews.

You only shook his hand because he came to you.

Again you are trying to make yourself to be this kind and innocent person and Mr. P. the evil guy that won't even try to make peace.

[Guest Guest]

So your argument is that trial lawyers are greedy, that they want money for themselves. That's not punishment. It's self-interest.

I know greedy doctors, too. In fact, there are greedy people in every field, including some of the clergy. That doesn't mean there aren't also good people in each of these fields who are truly motivated by a desire to help others. There's no reason why that can't include trial lawyers, and I'm sure it does. Some of them seem genuinely interested in helping the little guy.

I can understand not liking lawyers who manipulate the system, but that isn't limited to lawyers who bring personal injury lawsuits. I've never understood why people have such a gut-level dislike for lawyers who bring lawsuits for injured people, most of whom couldn't afford a lawyer to handle a case like that. These same people have no problem at all with lawyers who help huge corporations manipulate the system to screw all of us. Why the double standard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Listen numbnuts, we're talking about lawyers here. Specifically lawyers that make their living with personal injury cases. And we're talking about punishment also. And if going after an individual or a corporations money isn't seeking to punish them than I don't no what is.

I already said there are valid cases but the vast majority are just a money grab. Maybe Paul and his firm are the only good guys out there. He says they are careful about the cases they choose. Just remember there is a reason the phrase "ambulance chaser" is so iconic.

[Guest Guest]

OK, that's your claim. So answer the question you've been asked over and over. Hell is eternal torment with no hope of redemption, ever. It doesn't help the person being tormented, it doesn't help anyone else, and it doesn't help God. If God needs to remove the person from others to keep the person from hurting them, then he will put the person in a place where he cannot harm them, or just take away their power to do harm. Maybe, given enough time, they'll change. After all, your Bible says that every head shall bow and every knee shall bend.  If that happens, why not invite them back in? You can't make your free will argument when your own Bible says that everyone is going to do bow and bend. And if God is really God, you can't take anything away from him because he's God. He wouldn't need retribution. That's a human concept, and not a good one. The fact that you don't see that says something about your level of spiritual development, not about anything else. This idea of God getting his pound of flesh makes no sense. It's based on how people deal with each other in a finite world of scarce resources. How does burning someone's flesh without damaging it, and never changing that course, help anyone? And if it doesn't do any good, how can it be justice? You can't just claim that God has to have it that way for no good reason. God would have a reason, because according to you God is completely just. Justice isn't a dogmatic rule in a vacuum. It's what is best under all the circumstances. So how can eternal torment with no hope of redemption, even if the person repents and reforms, be justice?

That's the question.

Don't fight. Contemplate. Reflect. Think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I love all of these people that claim to know the mind of god.

[Bryan]

Hell is about justice--not punishment.

OK, that's your claim. So answer the question you've been asked over and over.

Which question is that?

Hell is eternal torment with no hope of redemption, ever.

You may be right.

It doesn't help the person being tormented, it doesn't help anyone else, and it doesn't help God.

How do you figure? Doesn't it keep active murderers out of heaven, at minimum?

If God needs to remove the person from others to keep the person from hurting them, then he will put the person in a place where he cannot harm them, or just take away their power to do harm.

Why doesn't hell accomplish that purpose?

Maybe, given enough time, they'll change.

How would you know somebody had changed? Because they said so? Or should you let the murderer out every 2 million years to see if he murders again, then when he murders put him back in hell for another 2 million (or should it be a much shorter time than that?)?

Given an eternity, that system could result in an infinity of murders. Does that seem wise?

After all, your Bible says that every head shall bow and every knee shall bend.  If that happens, why not invite them back in?

Because the text very probably means that all will be forced via the exercise of judgment to acknowledge God's sovereignty. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it very probably doesn't mean that each sinner will come before God in courtly grace and offer his sincerest respect.

You can't make your free will argument when your own Bible says that everyone is going to do bow and bend.

Why not?

You must have some nutty idea of what the free will argument is.

And if God is really God, you can't take anything away from him because he's God. He wouldn't need retribution. That's a human concept, and not a good one.

Hmmm. I thought I said that hell was about "justice," not "retribution." How did we accomplish that transformation?

The fact that you don't see that says something about your level of spiritual development, not about anything else.

Wheee! Let's jump from an illicit change of terms to a personal attack!

What fun!

This idea of God getting his pound of flesh makes no sense. It's based on how people deal with each other in a finite world of scarce resources. How does burning someone's flesh without damaging it, and never changing that course, help anyone?

See? You can't even justify the argument you're trying to force on me that I never made. It's a about justice, not retribution. Maybe you should start your argument over again from scratch.

And if it doesn't do any good, how can it be justice?

That's the big question, isn't it?

Your side tends to hint that it can't imagine the answer, therefore the answer is that it isn't justice--which is the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Is it reasonable to argue using fallacies?

Notice your implicit appeal to outcome-based morality ("If it doesn't do any good ..."). That's the form of morality that tends to produce ends-justifies-the-means ethical reasoning.

You really think hell can't be justified with ends-justifies-the-means?

That's why I've kept pressing Paul for his moral foundation. I know that he can't sustain his position logically any more than you can.

You can't just claim that God has to have it that way for no good reason.

What if I'm not using ends-justifies-the-means reasoning, and it just happens to be objectively good because god's innate, eternal moral nature dictates that it is good?

Why wouldn't that work?

Don't tell me it's because you say so, okay?

God would have a reason, because according to you God is completely just.

You seem to be assuming that an outcome-based morality (with the ends potentially justifying the means) is the foundation for justice.

Is that a solid assumption, or are you perhaps thinking even more narrowly than I am.

Justice isn't a dogmatic rule in a vacuum.

Obviously, since no rules would be needed in a perfect vacuum. In this scenario, the existence of a god and a hell have been posited. That should lay your vacuum idea to rest. Now deal with the real argument.

It's what is best under all the circumstances. So how can eternal torment with no hope of redemption, even if the person repents and reforms, be justice?

That's the question.

I've answered that question. Apparently you and Paul don't count my answer because it fails to answer in terms of your own moral assumptions, and we end up with a counterargument along these lines.

Bryan says hell is just because of X.

I don't believe that hell is just because of X.

Therefore, Bryan's answer is false.

Don't fight. Contemplate. Reflect. Think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Follow your own advice.

[Bryan]

(IOW, it doesn't work)

If it were unmistakable, then god would have interfered with the human will, wouldn't he?  You are suggesting that it should be absolutely impossible not to believe in god, aren't you?

Explain how a morally bad decision can be (accurately) called an "honest mistake"?  Doesn't that beg the question of whether or not the decision for ill was morally wrong?

And Paul can support his argument.

No, really.

So in a single post Bryan tells us that making the fact of God's existence clear removes all free will as to whether we would believe in him, and that deciding to be a Buddhist, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Humanist or anything but a Christian is a "morally bad decision."

Bzzt. Paul ignores the questions I asked intended to help me make sense of his claim, choosing instead to construct yet another in his series of straw men.

The key term is "unmistakable," which implies that nobody could make the mistake of thinking that god does not exist. Logically, that leads to a state of affairs in which all are effectively coerced into believing in god.

Since it's just an implication of what Paul wrote, I attempted to obtain clarification by asking Paul a few simple questions. True to form, he ignored the questions and embarked on Straw Man Trail.

As to the first, obvious things are pointed out to Bryan all the time. He manages through extraordinary acts of (free) will not to believe them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I mistook the meaning of the obvious, then the obvious wasn't unmistakable (which should be obvious because of the mistake involved).

The logic is airtight, but Paul breezed right past it on his way to yet another embarrassing fallacy.

Way to go, Paul!