(March 9, 2016 at 7:57 pm)Losty Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 7:36 pm)God of Mr. Hanky Wrote: I would like to remind all you sanctimonious assholes who showed up to point the finger after the action is over that Lady and I are not the only people behind this disaster with CL, and we didn't start the fire either. It was one of your own, Lucky (you named us exclusively), who pushed CL over the edge with his words, and I will never forget them: "You are a horrible, horrible person". That was Rhythm, who has been quiet through today. I believe his intent was good, but I know that I would not have used words like that with CL, and that actually says something because I know I'm not very kind. While I didn't like the words that were used, they could not be opposed while still pursuing the point that the problem of evil makes believers perverse in their morality. After Rhythm quietly bowed out, Lady and I were left to try and explain to CL, while she was crying over what he had called her, the point which was intended, but she could not be reached. Maybe we should have just let it go, but nobody wants to quit on hard feelings, and I thought we had almost made some progress with her - just couldn't slow down the momentum.

I don't think Luckie was accusing you of anything. She just stepped into the thread, she said she'd only seen a bit between certain people, and she said when she had time she would read the whole thread.

If she gets through it, I'll be impressed. I think I made it to page 52 or so when I had to start responding because I couldn't bear to read any more.

What Rhythm said was mean but I don't think it violated any rules and while I think calling her a horrible person was uncalled for I still agreed with the rest of his point.

I didn't think what Rhythm said violated any rules either, nor did I wish to imply that - in fact, the rest of his point was sound enough that I did not want to stop pressing CL on that point after he had left, although I still wish he hadn't used such harsh words. With Lucky, I responded to her flexing her mod muscle - to be specific, there was the implied threat of mod action, against I and just one other of at least five of us who were pressing CL last night on the problem of evil.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:57 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: If any mod action is warranted I feel it wholly unfair that hanky and I alone should have to shoulder that responsibility.

Luckie was speaking personally, not in her capacity of her position as a mod.

(March 9, 2016 at 8:01 pm)Losty Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 7:57 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I'm taking some time to reflect on all that went down here, but yeah, let's remember: Rob called her a rape apologist, Benny said people here only defend her because her boobs are big, and rhythm told her to fuck off.  If any mod action is warranted I feel it wholly unfair that hanky and I should have to shoulder that burden alone.  

Is there a mod action?? Maybe I'll have to go through the 20 pages I missed because I saw you being nothing but respectful up to page 52. And I didn't see anyone violating any rules except maybe bennyboy when he said about CL maybe not being a woman. It might be considered a personal attack or bringing something too personal into the discussion. It's definitely not against the rules to tell someone to go fuck themselves the last I checked.

Yes, that was Benny, not myself! I don't think Benny deserves mod action for that, but I don't want that comment mis-attributed to myself, and I believe that was so implied by Luckie. I did make a comment in the past which CL got upset about when I attempted to play the devil's advocate in regard to the attitudes of clergy men, but I would not say anything that crass to her, regardless of how I feel on friends of hers here who have made her status rather offensively privileged.

(March 9, 2016 at 7:00 pm)Losty Wrote: Rik also doesn't fall into that category for me but I have never seen a single person come to his defense in a debate when people are being really mean to him.

I have defended Little Rik against rule breakers. That people don't like him is no excuse to sit on the rules. In the other hand, though not a rule violation, Little Rik is constantly insulting his interlocutors.

No I was not speaking in mod capacity, I just wanted to get down to the bottom of all this stuff and bring everyone back onto the same page (hopefully). Accusations have been made, and I just want to go over what's been said, what hasn't, and get to the bottom of why we have unhappy posters! Catholic Lady included. Hanky And Lady Camu I am impressed thusfar with your patience in trying to stay on task and de-escalate the situation while trying to get Catholic Lady to understand why she got the reaction she did; from what I can tell, a new member--someone who probably started their account just to comment in this thread--brought up the rape subject. I'm currently working on a bulk post report for mods and posters. I'm not here for anything besides mediation and reconciliation. Please bear with me and give me through this evening to finish up the dots and i's and Q's and T's. Of course this is not a one mod decision or job--we are all working together in the background as well. Have patience with us, we all have jobs and whatnot (me I'm in the hospital trying to piece together a 70pg thread between physical therapy and IV port placements!).

(March 9, 2016 at 8:30 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 7:00 pm)Losty Wrote: Rik also doesn't fall into that category for me but I have never seen a single person come to his defense in a debate when people are being really mean to him.

I have defended Little Rik against rule breakers.  That people don't like him is no excuse to sit on the rules.  In the other hand, though not a rule violation, Little Rik is constantly insulting his interlocutors.

I'm not talking about rule violations though. It's not against the rules to be mean to someone in a debate.

I would very much like to send CL a private message but I believe she has blocked me. Is that what it means when certain things are "hidden" in a profile?

(March 9, 2016 at 8:33 pm)Luckie Wrote: No I was not speaking in mod capacity, I just wanted to get down to the bottom of all this stuff and bring everyone back onto the same page (hopefully). Accusations have been made, and I just want to go over what's been said, what hasn't, and get to the bottom of why we have unhappy posters! Catholic Lady included. Hanky And Lady Camu I am impressed thusfar with your patience in trying to stay on task and de-escalate the situation while trying to get Catholic Lady to understand hy she got the reaction she did; from what I can tell, a new member--someone who probably started their account just to comment in this thread--brought up the rape subject. I'm currently working on a bulk post report for mods and posters. I'm not here for anything besides mediation and reconciliation.

Thanks for clarifying, Luckie. I appreciate it.

(March 9, 2016 at 1:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 12:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I fail to see how what CL has said is an example of special pleading.  The argument from evil basically states that God would not allow gratuitous evil, that is, evil that is not otherwise necessary.  She has clearly elucidated the defense that she does not believe God has allowed unnecessary suffering, that he has a reason for its necessity which is consistent with a greater good.  She has also said that she doesn't know what that reason is.

Nowhere in this do I see any special pleading.  Could you be a little more precise in specifying your objection?

In other words, if such a judgement of gratuitous versus necessary evil can never be considered objectively morally acceptable here amongst us humans, is it not special pleading to give God allowance to do it for reason unknowable to us?

That would make such an actor immoral, if valid, but it wouldn't be special pleading as no fallacy is involved. I don't know that we don't allow some harm to fall for the greater good. We take people's hard earned money to pay for roads, schools, military and all whatnot. Is that not sacrificing someone's interests in the name of the greater good? This is a subject which comes up in utilitarian ethics where the straight formula is that what is moral is whatever delivers the greatest good for the most people. We disallow certain things because systematically they would lead to greater harm, but nothing says that we can't balance interests. Is it okay, in designing a world, to allow this kind of freedom? I don't know. I don't know what God's options were in designing this reality. If our world suffices to present the greatest total good, within the realm of the possible, would it not also be immoral to design a world with a lower overall total of goodness? So God, being omnipotent but constrained to that which is possible, may have been faced with a Hobbes choice. Are you suggesting the rest of us suffer a lesser more suffering imbued fate so that only rape victims prosper? I think in that circumstance, given lesser of evils and whatnot, God is morally permitted to 'settle' for the greater total good scenario.

(March 9, 2016 at 8:44 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 9, 2016 at 1:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: In other words, if such a judgement of gratuitous versus necessary evil can never be considered objectively morally acceptable here amongst us humans, is it not special pleading to give God allowance to do it for reason unknowable to us?

That would make such an actor immoral, if valid, but it wouldn't be special pleading as no fallacy is involved. I don't know that we don't allow some harm to fall for the greater good. We take people's hard earned money to pay for roads, schools, military and all whatnot. Is that not sacrificing someone's interests in the name of the greater good? This is a subject which comes up in utilitarian ethics where the straight formula is that what is moral is whatever delivers the greatest good for the most people. We disallow certain things because systematically they would lead to greater harm, but nothing says that we can't balance interests. Is it okay, in designing a world, to allow this kind of freedom? I don't know. I don't know what God's options were in designing this reality. If our world suffices to present the greatest total good, within the realm of the possible, would it not also be immoral to design a world with a lower overall total of goodness? So God, being omnipotent but constrained to that which is possible, may have been faced with a Hobbes choice. Are you suggesting the rest of us suffer a lesser more suffering imbued fate so that only rape victims prosper? I think in that circumstance, given lesser of evils and whatnot, God is morally permitted to 'settle' for the greater total good scenario.

That's a fair point. Humans are not perfect in that regard, though I don't think too many people could sit idly by and watch a child be raped for any kind of collective 'good of humanity.' I guess that is slippery slope...But God is supposed to be the authority on moral perfection; that which we must continually strive for but can never achieve because of our sin. If Christian X says, "under NO circumstances is it morally right to sit back and watch a child be raped and murdered because that is unquestionably, morally wrong according to God (our moral author) but...if God does it, that can be considered morally right, because he's God..." I still don't see how this isn't special pleading. Maybe I don't fully understand the fallacy its self.

To a different point though, if God himself is constrained, and has only a finite set of possibilities to work with in creating the universe and everything in it, can he still qualify as omnipotent?