Jump to content

"You got what you deserved"


Guest Paul

Recommended Posts

There is a fundamental difference in the way people look at moral, ethical, religious and spiritual questions. One of the dividing lines we see popping up in these discussions is a sharp line between people who think that people "deserve" to be punished as a necessary end in itself, and those who think that punishment is useful only if it serves a purpose, i.e., makes the world better in some way. There is no perfect formula for when punishment is justified, which probably explains a lot about why many people get stuck in the simpler way of looking at it (you deserve it!): it doesn't require much thought, much judgment, much compassion or much wisdom.

Punishment can serve a purpose, but it is not an end in itself. This is where the two ways of looking at things sharply diverge.

In each of these discussions on related topics, we see the same or similar themes. The more primitive view, as I see it, imagines a cosmic scorekeeper whose main focus is on making sure that "everything gets balanced" on an imaginary scale of justice, whatever that means; and that's the problem, it doesn't really mean anything. There is no there there. What scale is it, who calibrates it, and what has it to do with anything that is real: the answers are there isn't one, no one and nothing. The fundamentalist mind imagines a god who sets the scale, but yet again the entire system is no more than a product of their imaginations.

The better and more useful way of looking at it, I believe, is that the concept of what we "deserve" is of limited use. I can see not having much sympathy for someone who has descended into a fit of self-pity after having been convicted of a series of horrible crimes. In that context, even the most spiritual person might be tempted to say "you brought it on yourself, now live with the consequences." To be sure, society must be protected from people like that. However, in the law the penal system is called the correctional system. The reason is obvious from the title. I believe that is the better way of looking at things. We should not always give the incorrigible criminal "another chance, but if you do it again . . ." I've seen judges do that, and I don't like it. Still, the penal system must serve a purpose, even if it is only to keep criminals away from the rest of society. The idea of a "debt to society" is a fiction, useful to a limited degree but a fiction just the same. Sex offenders, for example, are rarely rehabilitated, so my concept of justice says that they should not be returned to society without severe restrictions that prevent recidivism, even if it means lifelong surveillance or house arrest after a prison term. The purpose is to protect the innocent, which is a necessity given what we know about recidivism with this kind of crime. So insisting that punishment serve a purpose is not necessarily a more lenient approach.

What strikes me about this is that these two different ways of looking at things run along a fault line that sharply separates people in our culture. Maybe this time we can have a thoughtful discussion about it. Those who are not interested are reminded that participation is not mandatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a fundamental difference in the way people look at moral, ethical, religious and spiritual questions. One of the dividing lines we see popping up in these discussions is a sharp line between people who think that people "deserve" to be punished as a necessary end in itself, and those who think that punishment is useful only if it serves a purpose, i.e., makes the world better in some way.

If punishment is a necessary end in itself, then it makes the world better in some way by definition.

Why does Paul have such difficulty understanding this? He gets confronted with it repeatedly in other threads. He avoids the issue in favor of starting yet another thread in which he pushes for his view on the basis of his apparent failure to understand the underlying metaphysical problems.

There is no perfect formula for when punishment is justified, which probably explains a lot about why many people get stuck in the simpler way of looking at it (you deserve it!): it doesn't require much thought, much judgment, much compassion or much wisdom.

Now Paul is back to his traditional ad hominem techniques. He seems to lack the wherewithall to produce a coherent argument, so he attacks his opponents as a class, portraying them as morally and intellectually inferior.

The first is the abusive form. If you refuse to accept a statement, and justify your refusal by criticizing the person who made the statement, then you are guilty of abusive argumentum ad hominem.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mat...ic.html#hominem

Why would a lawyer, who is supposedly learned in reasoning, argue routinely on the basis of logical fallacies? There's a mystery for you.

Punishment can serve a purpose, but it is not an end in itself. This is where the two ways of looking at things sharply diverge.

In each of these discussions on related topics, we see the same or similar themes. The more primitive view, as I see it, imagines a cosmic scorekeeper whose main focus is on making sure that "everything gets balanced" on an imaginary scale of justice, whatever that means; and that's the problem, it doesn't really mean anything. There is no there there. What scale is it, who calibrates it, and what has it to do with anything that is real: the answers are there isn't one, no one and nothing. The fundamentalist mind imagines a god who sets the scale, but yet again the entire system is no more than a product of their imaginations.

I think we can count this as a new approach by Paul, albeit inconsistent with his earlier claims. Earlier, he had claimed that the concept of a hell was unjust, not that there was no God with the power to send somebody to hell in the first place.

Don't let the man fool you. Look at what he has written and try to find the substantive argument therein. Good luck even with a microscope. We go from disbelieving God because of the doctrine of hell to the disbelieving of hell because of the asserted non-existence of God.

That's how to argue in a vicious circle, kiddies.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/begquest.html

Evidently Paul thinks it qualifies as reason.

The better and more useful way of looking at it, I believe, is that the concept of what we "deserve" is of limited use. I can see not having much sympathy for someone who has descended into a fit of self-pity after having been convicted of a series of horrible crimes. In that context, even the most spiritual person might be tempted to say "you brought it on yourself, now live with the consequences." To be sure, society must be protected from people like that. However, in the law the penal system is called the correctional system. The reason is obvious from the title. I believe that is the better way of looking at things. We should not always give the incorrigible criminal "another chance, but if you do it again . . ." I've seen judges do that, and I don't like it. Still, the penal system must serve a purpose, even if it is only to keep criminals away from the rest of society. The idea of a "debt to society" is a fiction, useful to a limited degree but a fiction just the same. Sex offenders, for example, are rarely rehabilitated, so my concept of justice says that they should not be returned to society without severe restrictions that prevent recidivism, even if it means lifelong surveillance or house arrest after a prison term. The purpose is to protect the innocent, which is a necessity given what we know about recidivism with this kind of crime. So insisting that punishment serve a purpose is not necessarily a more lenient approach.

That wasn't incoherent!

It didn't advance Paul's argument, either, OTOH.

Paul should consider whether or not it is legitimate to start with the presupposition of utilitarianism. Can he so thoroughly ignore Kant without bothering to address the contrary position(s)?

What strikes me about this is that these two different ways of looking at things run along a fault line that sharply separates people in our culture. Maybe this time we can have a thoughtful discussion about it. Those who are not interested are reminded that participation is not mandatory.

Nothing should have stopped Paul from having this discussion in any one of several threads. Apparently he simply thinks it entirely proper for Paul LaClair to control the terms of debate and have his presuppositions accepted without question.

Otherwise there would be no need for new threads to pop up to address issues already under discussion in other threads.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Conservative Mommy
There is a fundamental difference in the way people look at moral, ethical, religious and spiritual questions. One of the dividing lines we see popping up in these discussions is a sharp line between people who think that people "deserve" to be punished as a necessary end in itself, and those who think that punishment is useful only if it serves a purpose, i.e., makes the world better in some way. There is no perfect formula for when punishment is justified, which probably explains a lot about why many people get stuck in the simpler way of looking at it (you deserve it!): it doesn't require much thought, much judgment, much compassion or much wisdom.

Punishment can serve a purpose, but it is not an end in itself. This is where the two ways of looking at things sharply diverge.

In each of these discussions on related topics, we see the same or similar themes. The more primitive view, as I see it, imagines a cosmic scorekeeper whose main focus is on making sure that "everything gets balanced" on an imaginary scale of justice, whatever that means; and that's the problem, it doesn't really mean anything. There is no there there. What scale is it, who calibrates it, and what has it to do with anything that is real: the answers are there isn't one, no one and nothing. The fundamentalist mind imagines a god who sets the scale, but yet again the entire system is no more than a product of their imaginations.

The better and more useful way of looking at it, I believe, is that the concept of what we "deserve" is of limited use. I can see not having much sympathy for someone who has descended into a fit of self-pity after having been convicted of a series of horrible crimes. In that context, even the most spiritual person might be tempted to say "you brought it on yourself, now live with the consequences." To be sure, society must be protected from people like that. However, in the law the penal system is called the correctional system. The reason is obvious from the title. I believe that is the better way of looking at things. We should not always give the incorrigible criminal "another chance, but if you do it again . . ." I've seen judges do that, and I don't like it. Still, the penal system must serve a purpose, even if it is only to keep criminals away from the rest of society. The idea of a "debt to society" is a fiction, useful to a limited degree but a fiction just the same. Sex offenders, for example, are rarely rehabilitated, so my concept of justice says that they should not be returned to society without severe restrictions that prevent recidivism, even if it means lifelong surveillance or house arrest after a prison term. The purpose is to protect the innocent, which is a necessity given what we know about recidivism with this kind of crime. So insisting that punishment serve a purpose is not necessarily a more lenient approach.

What strikes me about this is that these two different ways of looking at things run along a fault line that sharply separates people in our culture. Maybe this time we can have a thoughtful discussion about it. Those who are not interested are reminded that participation is not mandatory.

Who is more able to set the rules for justice than the Ultimate Lawgiver? JESUS came and died for you so that you could LIVE FOREVER! If you rejct HIS gift then you will be cut off from HIM, which is what Hell is!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Prove it.

Prove Hell exists.

No one needs to prove that Heaven or Hell exists, especially to you. It is something that I live my life by and built my beliefs by. Look what happens when people stop believing. They end up like Paul LaClair and I would never wish that on anyone. And neither you or him will ever make me think otherwise.

And this comes from someone who has to use quotes from John Stewart for his basis of facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is more able to set the rules for justice than the Ultimate Lawgiver? JESUS came and died for you so that you could LIVE FOREVER! If you rejct HIS gift then you will be

Roughly 66 percent of the worlds population (over 4 billion people) are not Christian and do not believe in your God. Are they wrong? How do you justify that fact with your world view?

Evolution's gift, my brain and the ability to think for myself, works just fine thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If punishment is a necessary end in itself, then it makes the world better in some way by definition.

Why does Paul have such difficulty understanding this? 

Because it's gobbledygook.

1. On what basis is punishment a necessary end in itself?

2. Why doesn't punishment have to serve an identifiable purpose in order to be just?

3. When and how does punishment make the world better?

4. If you declare to punishment to be inherently good, then by your definition punishment is inherently good. That doesn't mean that your premise was ever sound in the first place. Talk about circular reasoning!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is more able to set the rules for justice than the Ultimate Lawgiver? JESUS came and died for you so that you could LIVE FOREVER! If you rejct HIS gift then you will be cut off from HIM, which is what Hell is!

Would your father have done that to you?

Would you do that to your child?

Think about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is more able to set the rules for justice than the Ultimate Lawgiver? JESUS came and died for you so that you could LIVE FOREVER! If you rejct HIS gift then you will be cut off from HIM, which is what Hell is!

Yes, indeed. And while you're at it, don't forget to pay homage to Jesus' good buddy, Hank:

http://www.jhuger.com/kisshank.php

Link to post
Share on other sites
No one needs to prove that Heaven or Hell exists, especially to you.

They do if they expect me to ever take this silly story seriously.

It is something that I live my life by and built my beliefs by.

So you live your life by something you can't even prove exists? Sounds extremely gullible to me.

Look what happens when people stop believing.  They end up like Paul LaClair and I would never wish that on anyone.  And neither you or him will ever make me think otherwise.

Very cheap shot.

Ah, "I will not be convinced," the battle cry of the ignorant. So staunch are you in your ignorance that no matter what, you will never change your mind. And on top of this, you appear literally proud of this ignorance. Truly pitiful.

And this comes from someone who has to use quotes from John Stewart for his basis of facts.

LOL, so now putting a satirical and comedic quote of Jon Stewart's in my signature means that I'm using that quote as a "basis of facts?" What color is the sky in your world?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's gobbledygook.

What an argument! :lol:

1. On what basis is punishment a necessary end in itself?

On the same basis that any value is a value. And none of them require any justification when presented for the sake of argument.

Now, if you're going to claim that a particular value system if objective and universal ... then you'd have to at least justify the "objective" and "universal" parts.

2. Why doesn't punishment have to serve an identifiable purpose in order to be just?

That looks exactly like Paul shifting the burden of proof for his earlier claim that punishment must serve an identifiable purpose.

Again, it's Paul insisting on his presuppositions. I either accept his presuppositions or offer some reason not to accept his presuppositions--other than the fact that Paul fallaciously begs the question with the presupposition, of course.

Again, Paul, the reason why punishment does not have to serve an identifiable purpose is so that we don't fallaciously beg the question by completely ignoring moral frameworks such as the one suggested by Kant.

3. When and how does punishment make the world better?

Because it's just, obviously. I already told you that. If you insist on a deeper explanation then you're just repeating the fallacy you commit at #2.

4. If you declare to punishment to be inherently good, then by your definition punishment is inherently good. That doesn't mean that your premise was ever sound in the first place. Talk about circular reasoning!

Indeed, but using a straw man to accuse me of circular reasoning is a fallacy.

First, I did not argue that punishment is inherently good.

I simply argued that the claim that the punishment of hell is good is a claim that intrinsically rests on values, which undermines Paul LaClair's utterly stupid claim that that it wasn't justified according to values.

Second, yes it's true that if it were declared that punishment (in hell) is inherently good, then punishment (in hell) is inherently good.

That is not, as Paul seems to suppose, an attempt to ground the proposition in fact. It was an illustration of the fact (via tautology) that the goodness of punishment in hell constitutes a moral value (see my first point, above).

In summary, the statement is not fallacious in the least since no attempt is made to make the tautology stretch beyond its self-evident truth: the justness of hell is a value, therefore Paul's demand that the justness of hell be justified according to values is nonsense (since the demand has been met equal to any justification Paul has made for any of the values he has deemed "objective" and "universal").

There are additional conclusions that may be drawn based on the fact that the ramifications are so achingly slow to dawn on Mr. LaClair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE

1. On what basis is punishment a necessary end in itself?

On the same basis that any value is a value. And none of them require any justification when presented for the sake of argument.

Punishment isn't a value, you idiot. It's an unhappy means of addressing a bad situation. It has to serve a purpose. It is not an end in itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE

2. Why doesn't punishment have to serve an identifiable purpose in order to be just?

That looks exactly like Paul shifting the burden of proof for his earlier claim that punishment must serve an identifiable purpose.

You're the one shifting the burden. In law, there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt before someone can be punished. That's a very heavy burden of proof, and the reason for it is that we don't have a right to punish someone without a compelling reason, and the reason for that is that punishment is not good in itself, but the opposite of good. It is undesirable. What is undesirable is not an end in itself. Ergo, punishment must serve an identifiable purpose in order to be just.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
I simply argued that the claim that the punishment of hell is good is a claim that intrinsically rests on values, which undermines Paul LaClair's utterly stupid claim that that it wasn't justified according to values.

If you can't identify any values that it rests on, then the claim (hell is good) is false. Sure, it's a values statement, but there aren't any identifiable values to support it and make it morally or ethically true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
First, I did not argue that punishment is inherently good.

(1) I simply argued that the claim that the punishment of hell is good is a claim that intrinsically rests on values, which undermines Paul LaClair's utterly stupid claim that that it wasn't justified according to values.

(2) Second, yes it's true that if it were declared that punishment (in hell) is inherently good, then punishment (in hell) is inherently good.

That is not, as Paul seems to suppose, an attempt to ground the proposition in fact.  It was an illustration of the fact (via tautology) that the goodness of punishment in hell constitutes a moral value (see my first point, above).

(3) In summary, the statement is not fallacious in the least since no attempt is made to make the tautology stretch beyond its self-evident truth:  the justness of hell is a value, therefore Paul's demand that the justness of hell be justified according to values is nonsense (since the demand has been met equal to any justification Paul has made for any of the values he has deemed "objective" and "universal").

(1) Saying that the claim rests on values is not the same thing as justifying that claim with reference to particular values, which is what Bryan cannot do. It's like saying "this costs money," but not having any money to buy it with. The reason he cannot do it is that hell does not promote any good values. He tries to use the word "justice" to stand for all values, but as has been pointed out, "justice" is a term that can mean anything, including a great many anti-values like blowing up tall buildings filled with people.

(2) Saying something is inherently good is not the same as the thing being inherently good. That's like saying "I said it, therefore it's true."

(3) That's like arguing that God exists because you're talking about him. This guy is giving philosophy lessons?

Watching Bryan argue philosophy and theology is like watching Daffy Duck wrestle. After a burst of frenetic activity, the dust clears to reveal a tangled, black feathered mass with two eyes peeking out from between a pair of scrawny, twisted legs. Something like this: :)

"How did I get mythelf into thith predicament," athkth the little black duck. "Simple," says Bugs munching on his carrot. "You neglected the little detail that good and bad is about something."

Well OK, Bugs wouldn't actually say that, but you get the idea. How ironic that Bryan gets himself so twisted around that he ends up arguing from a position of radical moral relativism. But he won't see it. He's always right, so he can't be wrong. How foolish of me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What an argument! :)

On the same basis that any value is a value.  And none of them require any justification when presented for the sake of argument.

Now, if you're going to claim that a particular value system if objective and universal ... then you'd have to at least justify the "objective" and "universal" parts.

That looks exactly like Paul shifting the burden of proof for his earlier claim that punishment must serve an identifiable purpose.

Again, it's Paul insisting on his presuppositions.  I either accept his presuppositions or offer some reason not to accept his presuppositions--other than the fact that Paul fallaciously begs the question with the presupposition, of course.

Again, Paul, the reason why punishment does not have to serve an identifiable purpose is so that we don't fallaciously beg the question by completely ignoring moral frameworks such as the one suggested by Kant.

Because it's just, obviously.  I already told you that.  If you insist on a deeper explanation then you're just repeating the fallacy you commit at #2.

Indeed, but using a straw man to accuse me of circular reasoning is a fallacy.

First, I did not argue that punishment is inherently good.

I simply argued that the claim that the punishment of hell is good is a claim that intrinsically rests on values, which undermines Paul LaClair's utterly stupid claim that that it wasn't justified according to values.

Second, yes it's true that if it were declared that punishment (in hell) is inherently good, then punishment (in hell) is inherently good.

That is not, as Paul seems to suppose, an attempt to ground the proposition in fact.  It was an illustration of the fact (via tautology) that the goodness of punishment in hell constitutes a moral value (see my first point, above).

In summary, the statement is not fallacious in the least since no attempt is made to make the tautology stretch beyond its self-evident truth:  the justness of hell is a value, therefore Paul's demand that the justness of hell be justified according to values is nonsense (since the demand has been met equal to any justification Paul has made for any of the values he has deemed "objective" and "universal").

There are additional conclusions that may be drawn based on the fact that the ramifications are so achingly slow to dawn on Mr. LaClair.

Maybe I’m just a cockeyed optimist, but I happen to think that some things are better than other things. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that some things are intrinsically desirable (good), while others are intrinsically undesirable (bad). To list a few examples:

Satisfaction of material needs: good

Starving to death: bad

Being healthy: good

Being sick: bad

Being happy: good

Being miserable: bad

Is this too complicated for you Bryan? Let me know if it is, and I’ll slow down.

Now get ready because here comes the tough one:

Feeling at least OK: good

Suffering the worst pain you can imagine forever without a moment’s rest:

Let’s be careful now, don’t want to answer too fast. OK, I’m going out on a limb.

I say that’s bad. Yes, that's right, Paul LaClair says that eternal torment in a fiery hell without a moment's respite from the pain is something that humans, universally, would choose to avoid. And it doesn't do them any good since they're condemned without any hope of redemption. So it serves no purpose. It is an unmitigated not-good-thing.

Bryan, when you say that punishment is an end in itself you’re denying all of that. Punishment is something to be avoided, which means that it cannot be an end in itself. All of that is universal to human experience. That is why our common humanity is a sound and objective foundation for an ethical, moral and religious system.

Then when you say that “hell is good” is a values statement, just like “hell is bad,” you’re ignoring the content of the value. They are both values statements, but only one of this is supported by any values, as evidenced by the fact that you can't list any. It’s not like we don’t have a pretty good idea of what human beings generally value, like “starving to death, bad.” That’s not a complicated idea, or a controversial one either.

And this illustrates exactly what I’ve been saying about your argument. You want God in the picture, but you have to deal with the problem of hell. So what do you do? You make God out to be worse than nihilism, thereby admitting the central point without even realizing it. In other words, if you have to turn the distinction between good and bad upside down to defend the idea, then there’s something wrong with the idea.

Here's the ultimate irony: You theists insist that we non-theists don't have any values. Number one, you're wrong, but number two and more to the point, you've completely eliminated values from your concept of justice, while I make them central and essential to it. When you recognize yourself coming around the barn, let us know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Saying that the claim rests on values is not the same thing as justifying that claim with reference to particular values, which is what Bryan cannot do.

Then describe the difference.

It's like saying "this costs money," but not having any money to buy it with. The reason he cannot do it is that hell does not promote any good values. He tries to use the word "justice" to stand for all values, but as has been pointed out, "justice" is a term that can mean anything, including a great many anti-values like blowing up tall buildings filled with people.

How is it like saying "this costs money" but not having any money to buy it with?

That's like saying "It's like Zsa-Zsa Gabor" without saying how it's like Zsa-Zsa Gabor.

I don't use the word justice to stand for all values. I simply note that justice is, itself, a value and need not be justified in turn according to other values.

(2) Saying something is inherently good is not the same as the thing being inherently good. That's like saying "I said it, therefore it's true."

I agree; I simply noted the equivalence between Paul's argument and the bald claim that hell is just. This should remind you of Paul's responsibility to justify his ability to meaningfully condemn hell as unjust.

So far, Paul has seemed blissfully immune to that realization.

(3) That's like arguing that God exists because you're talking about him. This guy is giving philosophy lessons?

I am indeed. I haven't argued that hell is just because I say so except to illustrate the absurdity of Paul's approach.

Why is it I need to explain that to you? Wasn't it perfectly obvious?

Perhaps you wanted to believe that I had made the argument you attributed to me, and thus fixed in your mind that I had made that argument.

Paul calls that a sign of fundamentalism.

Watching Bryan argue philosophy and theology is like watching Daffy Duck wrestle.

You sound like a guy who has lost a whole bunch of wrestling matches to Daffy Duck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
QUOTE(Bryan @ Jun 27 2007, 11:30 AM)

I simply argued that the claim that the punishment of hell is good is a claim that intrinsically rests on values, which undermines Paul LaClair's utterly stupid claim that that it wasn't justified according to values.

(Guest): If you can't identify any values that it rests on, then the claim (hell is good) is false. Sure, it's a values statement, but there aren't any identifiable values to support it and make it morally or ethically true. .

In other words, you can put the feather in Yankee Doodle's cap, but it still isn't macaroni, even if you call it that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
(1) Then describe the difference.

(2) How is it like saying "this costs money" but not having any money to buy it with?

That's like saying "It's like Zsa-Zsa Gabor" without saying how it's like Zsa-Zsa Gabor.

(3) I don't use the word justice to stand for all values.  I simply note that justice is, itself, a value and need not be justified in turn according to other values.

(4) I agree; I simply noted the equivalence between Paul's argument and the bald claim that hell is just.  This should remind you of Paul's responsibility to justify his ability to meaningfully condemn hell as unjust.

So far, Paul has seemed blissfully immune to that realization.

(5) I am indeed.  I haven't argued that hell is just because I say so except to illustrate the absurdity of Paul's approach. 

(6) Why is it I need to explain that to you?  Wasn't it perfectly obvious?

(1) I did.

(2) Because saying "hell is just" doesn't explain how.

(3) You're wrong. Justice must encompass other values to mean anything. Prove me wrong. Tell me what justice is without reference to other values.

(4) You're wrong again. Paul is referring to things like happiness, which are experienced.

(5) OK, so now I'm asking: Do you believe hell is just? Why or why not?

(6) No it wasn't. Isn't that perfectly obvious?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Sort of reminds me about another father who would defend his son even though he was wrong to try to protect his family name.  "Think about it."

Getting through the thick skull of a fundie nutjob is a lot like potty training. You’re not dealing with much brain power, so you have to be persistent. So let’s try by stating the facts of the case yet again.

Whether you like it or not, the kid believed his teacher was doing something wrong. You may have noticed that a lot of people agree with him, including the entire legal community (except for Paszkiewicz’s fundie nutjob lawyer) and eventually the Kearny BOE. So he believed he was morally obligated to act. Whether you agree with him or not, or like or dislike the consequences, that is what the kid believed.

The kid also realized:

(1) His fellow students weren’t going to stick their necks out to tell the truth against a popular teacher;

(2) The administration was going to side with the teacher if at all possible; and

(3) While he didn’t know the teacher well enough to be sure, there was at least a substantial chance that the teacher would try to cover himself by denying what he had done, especially knowing that the students and administration would probably side with him. You seem to think the kid has never seen the inside of a church, but apparently he saw inside this preacher man pretty well.

So the kid decided the only way he could do what was right and defend himself at the same time was to have proof. He chose the only practical means available, which was to record the teacher’s classes.

Lo and behold,

(1) The kid’s fellow students stood up for the teacher and attacked him, even after the recordings were on line;

(2) The administration tried to defend the teacher; and

(3) The teacher lied about what he had said in the classroom, then lied about his denial. Meanwhile, he tried to intimidate the kid and get the kid in trouble.

So the kid was dead right about all of it. No doubt that really pisses you off.

Then, after the national press got hold of the story, people from all over the world wrote in to ask what the hell was wrong with the water in Kearny. You gave the entire world the impression that Kearny is a village of idiots, and nearly a year later you’re still saying the same asinine things you did the better part of a year ago.

You can make anything sound bad, but the fact is that you support the killing of innocent civilians in war just as long as no one actually calls it that. Collateral damage, you call it.

Here’s the bottom line. Your boy got his ass kicked by a kid who out-thought and out-maneuvered him, and so did you. And the irony is, the kid wasn't even looking to kick anyone's ass. All he wanted was for the teacher and administration to do the right thing. When they didn't, he kicked their ass with a little help from dad. Get over it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) I did.

:lol:

You fallaciously begged the question, which means that you didn't:

"The reason he cannot do it is that hell does not promote any good values."

Reminder: The justness of hell is a value.

(2) Because saying "hell is just" doesn't explain how.

There is explanation for values that will not rely on some unprovable axiom. You like to claim that's a problem for me, and you like to excuse yourself and Paul from that standard (an implicit fallacy of special pleading).

(3) You're wrong. Justice must encompass other values to mean anything. Prove me wrong. Tell me what justice is without reference to other values.

Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof ("Prove me wrong"). You're three for three with a fallacy for each of your numbered points, which is very impressive.

Justice without reference to other values is justice. That was pretty easy.

Seriously, why don't you take up your burden of proof and try to make it stick without committing a bunch more embarrassing logical fallacies?

(4) You're wrong again. Paul is referring to things like happiness, which are experienced.

So how does that make me wrong, other than via a non sequitur (another fallacy)?

(5) OK, so now I'm asking: Do you believe hell is just? Why or why not?

Yes, I think hell is just. I think it's just because I understand hell according to the attributes of God (love, justice, etc.) rather than through the fallacy of appeal to outrage. Within a theistic framework, I understand morality to be a brute objective fact that suffuses reality because of God's absolute sovereignty and his role as creator. This understanding provides, in principle, an objective foundation for morality that need not cross the is/ought divide (the ought is a prescriptive is--a feat I do not believe Paul can meaningfully duplicate).

(6) No it wasn't. Isn't that perfectly obvious?

Okay, so you're even dumber than I thought. Point to you on that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
Getting through the thick skull of a fundie nutjob is a lot like potty training. You’re not dealing with much brain power, so you have to be persistent. So let’s try by stating the facts of the case yet again.

Whether you like it or not, the kid believed his teacher was doing something wrong. You may have noticed that a lot of people agree with him, including the entire legal community (except for Paszkiewicz’s fundie nutjob lawyer) and eventually the Kearny BOE. So he believed he was morally obligated to act. Whether you agree with him or not, or like or dislike the consequences, that is what the kid believed.

The kid also realized:

(1) His fellow students weren’t going to stick their necks out to tell the truth against a popular teacher;

(2) The administration was going to side with the teacher if at all possible; and

(3) While he didn’t know the teacher well enough to be sure, there was at least a substantial chance that the teacher would try to cover himself by denying what he had done, especially knowing that the students and administration would probably side with him. You seem to think the kid has never seen the inside of a church, but apparently he saw inside this preacher man pretty well.

So the kid decided the only way he could do what was right and defend himself at the same time was to have proof. He chose the only practical means available, which was to record the teacher’s classes.

Lo and behold,

(1) The kid’s fellow students stood up for the teacher and attacked him, even after the recordings were on line;

(2) The administration tried to defend the teacher; and

(3) The teacher lied about what he had said in the classroom, then lied about his denial. Meanwhile, he tried to intimidate the kid and get the kid in trouble.

So the kid was dead right about all of it. No doubt that really pisses you off.

Then, after the national press got hold of the story, people from all over the world wrote in to ask what the hell was wrong with the water in Kearny. You gave the entire world the impression that Kearny is a village of idiots, and nearly a year later you’re still saying the same asinine things you did the better part of a year ago.

You can make anything sound bad, but the fact is that you support the killing of innocent civilians in war just as long as no one actually calls it that. Collateral damage, you call it.

Here’s the bottom line. Your boy got his ass kicked by a kid who out-thought and out-maneuvered him, and so did you. And the irony is, the kid wasn't even looking to kick anyone's ass. All he wanted was for the teacher and administration to do the right thing. When they didn't, he kicked their ass with a little help from dad. Get over it.

So contrary to Paul's attitude of trying to do the right thing, all of which could have been accomplished by meeting with the administrators, this was really about kicking someone's ass.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...