If I somehow insult you I always have a point to make about it. I don't just throw around acusations either, I always explain how you're wrong. You think you can just throw at me things out of context.

(December 12, 2015 at 10:31 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: I asked you in the past to either engage me or not, but abstain from dismissing me like that. I don't do it to you, and I could. I expect the same basic decency from you.

I'm not dismissing you by telling you that you're asking for someone to choose two options when those options wouldn't be the only two options.

Sure you can define the thought experiment in such a way so that no other options exist, but that's a very unhelpful and unrealistic thought experiment. In a real situation the only options wouldn't be "stab the person to death" or "turn the other cheek".

(December 12, 2015 at 10:33 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: If I somehow insult you I always have a point to make about it. I don't just throw around acusations either, I always explain how you're wrong. You think you can just throw at me things out of context.

Saying that I think what you have said is a "false dichotomy" is not an insult or an accusation.

I expect better from you than this. You're becoming more illogical than normal, probably because you appear to be getting so unnecessarily enraged.

I am not dismissing you, I'm making a point. Stop taking everything so personal.

(December 12, 2015 at 10:31 am)Evie Wrote:

(December 12, 2015 at 10:28 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: And it isn't a false fucking dichotomy since the FUCKING SCENARIO I DESCRIBED LITERALLY INCLUDES JUST THE TWO OPTIONS. ITS NOT REALITY, IT'S A FUCKING THOUGHT EXPERIMENT.

If the only two options for some bizarre reason was "stab the person to death" or "turn the other cheek" then it wouldn't be a false dichotomy.

If you are forcing her in your thought experiment to choose one of those options, then it's not a very useful thought experiment. If it actually happened that would be a false dichotomy.

Oh and fucking hell, calm the fuck down before you hurt yourself.

The underlying point is, forgiveness is all about understanding a person's future intentions. If you know for sure someone is irredeeamable, you would have no grounds to excuse them. Conversely, if you knew they wouldn't ever do it again, or knew for sure why they did it and think you can prevent it from repeating you would "forgive" them.

(December 12, 2015 at 10:29 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: My rage is on apparently.

Yes, calm the fuck down. No need for caps and rage. It's pathetic if my simply saying "false dichotomy" is going to enrage you like this.

(December 12, 2015 at 10:33 am)Evie Wrote:

(December 12, 2015 at 10:31 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: I asked you in the past to either engage me or not, but abstain from dismissing me like that. I don't do it to you, and I could. I expect the same basic decency from you.

I'm not dismissing you by telling you that you're asking for someone tho choose two options when those options wouldn't be the only two options.

Sure you can define the thought experiment in such a way so that no other options exist, but that's a very unhelpful and unrealistic thought experiment. In a real situation the only options wouldn't be "stab the person to death" or "turn the other cheek".

Yes, they would be the only two options since the scenario I described could only include those two options. How is that so hard to understand?

But that's the whole point of thought experiments. We can't only cite reality to guide us, we can infer from reality to imagine situations in order to better grasp, explain or understand certain concepts.

(December 12, 2015 at 10:35 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: The underlying point is, forgiveness is all about understanding a person's future intentions. If you know for sure someone is irredeeamable, you would have no grounds to excuse them. Conversely, if you knew they wouldn't ever do it again, or knew for sure why they did it and think you can prevent it from repeating you would "forgive" them.

I disagree. Someone could die on the spot after harming me or someone I love very greatly with malicious intent, and even after they have died and have no future intentions, I may or may not still bitter be about their actions.

Even though the person is dead, if I think that while they were still alive they "should and could have done otherwise" and I believe in free will, then I'm likely to still feel bitterness to them. I will never "forgive" them. However, if, on the other hand, I don't believe they could have done otherwise and they were unlucky to have the brain they did, although of course their actions were horrific and they should have been detained , I won't feel bitterness to them, I may indeed be able to forgive them. And in my most dispassionate analysis I may recognize that it makes no sense to hold them ultimately responsible in the first place.

(December 12, 2015 at 10:37 am)excitedpenguin Wrote:

(December 12, 2015 at 10:33 am)Evie Wrote: I'm not dismissing you by telling you that you're asking for someone tho choose two options when those options wouldn't be the only two options.

Sure you can define the thought experiment in such a way so that no other options exist, but that's a very unhelpful and unrealistic thought experiment. In a real situation the only options wouldn't be "stab the person to death" or "turn the other cheek".

Yes, they would be the only two options since the scenario I described could only include those two options. How is that so hard to understand?

No the scenario could involve other options because it's a false dichotomy. It's only a true dichotomy if within the scenario you describe you say something like "No other options are allowed in this scenario", and how is that helpful?

It's like saying "There are 3 bowls of soup, one is super hot and will burn your tongue, one is super cold and will freeze your tongue, and the other one is perfect temperature. Which one would you pick? Oh! By the way you're not allowed to pick the one with perfect temperature."

(December 12, 2015 at 10:39 am)Evie Wrote:

(December 12, 2015 at 10:35 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: The underlying point is, forgiveness is all about understanding a person's future intentions. If you know for sure someone is irredeeamable, you would have no grounds to excuse them. Conversely, if you knew they wouldn't ever do it again, or knew for sure why they did it and think you can prevent it from repeating you would "forgive" them.

I disagree. Someone could die on the spot after harming me or someone I love very greatly with malicious intent, and even after they have died and have no future intentions, I may or may not still bitter be about their actions.

Even though the person is dead, if I think that while they were still alive they "should and could have done otherwise" and I believe in free will, then I'm likely to still feel bitterness to them. I will never "forgive" them. However, if, on the other hand, I don't believe they could have done otherwise and they were unlucky to have the brain they did, although of course their actions were horrific and they should have been detained , I won't feel bitterness to them, I may indeed be able to forgive them. And in my most dispassionate analysis I may recognize that it makes no sense to hold them ultimately responsible in the first place.

I wasn't talking about feelings of bitterness. I was talking about practical forgiveness. As in whether or not you excuse someone for doing something in the sense that you don't think they'll do it again.