(September 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm)John V Wrote: OK, got anything that isn't completely circular?

It's not circular, I just mistakenly assumed you were intelligent enough to recognize that we are all persons ourselves, and thus that personal freedom is important to us, because it's the only lens through which we can interact with the world and fulfill our desires.

I'll never make the mistake of considering you capable of understanding basic concepts again.

Quote:Another bare assertion.

Another qualitative assessment; are you making an argument that being happy isn't important? Why have any care for heaven or god, then? Don't those things make you happy? Isn't that kind of the point of heaven?

Quote:So far it seems it does need to be handed down from god, as you're unable to articulate a reason that isn't an obvious fallacy.

You appear to need every little thing explained to you in painstaking detail before you deign to understand a concept like "people enjoy it when they are happy," or "personal freedom allows people the leeway to attain that happiness within reasonable limits constrained by mutual agreement." I'm sorry you're hard of understanding, but your own ignorance or intractability doesn't make you correct.

Quote:The law regulates women taken in war. They are married to the captor after a 30-day wait. The law does not condone battlefield rape.

Just so long as the rape happens in the comfort of the captor's own home, huh? If you actually believe any of this is morally justified you are just a terrible human being.

(September 8, 2013 at 8:04 am)Esquilax Wrote: It's not circular, I just mistakenly assumed you were intelligent enough to recognize that we are all persons ourselves, and thus that personal freedom is important to us, because it's the only lens through which we can interact with the world and fulfill our desires.

I'll never make the mistake of considering you capable of understanding basic concepts again.

Insult me all you like, but the fact is that you made a circular argument, and haven't corrected it.

Quote:Another qualitative assessment; are you making an argument that being happy isn't important?

No, I'm asking you to support that it is with something other than circles or, in this case, an argument from ignorance.

An evolutionist could easily argue that happiness isn't important, only reproductive success - and even that relies on the unsupported premise that life is important.

Quote:You appear to need every little thing explained to you in painstaking detail before you deign to understand a concept like "people enjoy it when they are happy," or "personal freedom allows people the leeway to attain that happiness within reasonable limits constrained by mutual agreement." I'm sorry you're hard of understanding, but your own ignorance or intractability doesn't make you correct.

I'm pretty sure the slave owners derived benefits from their slaves which made them happy, but that happiness doesn't seem important to you.

Quote:Just so long as the rape happens in the comfort of the captor's own home, huh? If you actually believe any of this is morally justified you are just a terrible human being.

Arranged marriage has been common across time and cultures. You're taking a very narrow and arrogant view in calling it rape.

(September 8, 2013 at 8:39 am)John V Wrote: Insult me all you like, but the fact is that you made a circular argument, and haven't corrected it.

Do you not like your personal freedoms? Do you think that other people happen to enjoy theirs? This is the reason that it isn't circular. The things that people want are important to people; I know you think that everything issues from god, but you haven't demonstrated that. In the meantime, I can easily demonstrate that people have positive and negative responses to stimuli and can construct societies based upon those.

Yes, it's not quite as lofty as "this is good because it's divinely ordained," but in a world where we are the only beings in the society, it's all we have.

Quote:No, I'm asking you to support that it is with something other than circles or, in this case, an argument from ignorance.

And again, the fact that you don't understand simple concepts like "people enjoy certain things," in no way makes my argument invalid or circular. Try, just for a little while, considering the atheist viewpoint, where we're required to construct out concepts of good and bad sans divine intervention: what would we build these ideas around, in that case?

My submission is that part of these come down to our positive/negative responses to the stimuli of the physical world we all inhabit. Yes, it's not a perfect basis, it's led to some mistakes in the past, but we correct them.

Quote:An evolutionist could easily argue that happiness isn't important, only reproductive success

Certainly, from an evolutionary perspective, that's the most important thing. But there are other perspectives than just one; there's also a human perspective, in which happiness is important.

Quote: - and even that relies on the unsupported premise that life is important.

Life isn't important in the grand scheme of things. But it's important to me, being that I'm a living being. Why is it that you think that human desires play no justifiable part in what's important to humans?

Quote:I'm pretty sure the slave owners derived benefits from their slaves which made them happy, but that happiness doesn't seem important to you.

It's why I added that whole qualifier about constraints, because it's not just about individual happiness. We aren't children, we understand that sometimes longterm happiness and safety means that we must give up certain immediate, maximal pleasures. Yes, slavery is a distinct advantage for the slave owner, but it isn't for the slaves, and we as human beings have a little thing called "empathy" which means that we can imagine the pain of others. Yes, there's an evolutionary basis for that.

Speaking of which, in purely practical terms, the reason we abolished slavery is because certain things need to be, for the health of the society; allowing slavery puts a target on the backs of everyone, in terms of who can be enslaved in the future. It's best if the whole practice is just forbidden, so that nobody gets hurt. The same with murder, and rape, etc etc: a functioning society benefits all of its members, hence that little "mutual agreement" clause you skipped over.

So, now you have it. I'm really rather surprised I had to drag it out this far.

Quote:JArranged marriage has been common across time and cultures. You're taking a very narrow and arrogant view in calling it rape.

So, to be clear: the women are taken from their homes in the middle of a war, while their families are being killed in that same war, and they're married off to the men who kidnapped them, against their will since it's an arranged marriage, and you're saying that they'd consent to sex with the enemy that's pillaging their home?

Or are you just being obtuse again because it's easier than admitting your holy book is slowly turning you into a fucking monster, one immoral scriptural defense at a time?

(September 8, 2013 at 6:54 am)John V Wrote:

Quote:By the way, god never comdemns slavery, or the rape of girls by the isrealites in times of war.

Again, it's not rape in war. Women were taken, held for thirty days, then married. Also note that in that culture arranged marriage was common, and women frequently didn't know their husband for that long before marrying. Also, if the marriage didn't work out, the woman was a free woman.

Of course it wasn't rape back then, those women liked being corralled like cattle and forced to mate with someone they hate. It was ok because all men in that jewish society were assholes and they had no hope anyway? (i.e. that's the way it was done) That's an excellent argument John V.

Try to justify your horrible imaginary god from the eyes of a captured girl from one of Israel's conquests. Explain to us how she was not raped by her father's killers, but instead fell in love with them, withing 30 days, and chose to give her body, love, and trust to the soldier. That is so believable, but it must be true if your god is not an ass.

I've been away from this thread and it's kind of painful to read. Someone just want to fill me in on whether or not John V has denied or admitted to saying that permanent maiming is appropriate punishment for assault?

(September 8, 2013 at 11:00 am)Brakeman Wrote: Of course it wasn't rape back then, those women liked being corralled like cattle and forced to mate with someone they hate. It was ok because all men in that jewish society were assholes and they had no hope anyway? (i.e. that's the way it was done) That's an excellent argument John V.

Try to justify your horrible imaginary god from the eyes of a captured girl from one of Israel's conquests. Explain to us how she was not raped by her father's killers, but instead fell in love with them, withing 30 days, and chose to give her body, love, and trust to the soldier. That is so believable, but it must be true if your god is not an ass.

You ignore the point about arranged marriage. By your standards, those women were going to be raped on their wedding nights anyway - and put in that position by their own parents.

(September 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 8, 2013 at 11:00 am)Brakeman Wrote: Of course it wasn't rape back then, those women liked being corralled like cattle and forced to mate with someone they hate. It was ok because all men in that jewish society were assholes and they had no hope anyway? (i.e. that's the way it was done) That's an excellent argument John V.

Try to justify your horrible imaginary god from the eyes of a captured girl from one of Israel's conquests. Explain to us how she was not raped by her father's killers, but instead fell in love with them, withing 30 days, and chose to give her body, love, and trust to the soldier. That is so believable, but it must be true if your god is not an ass.

You ignore the point about arranged marriage. By your standards, those women were going to be raped on their wedding nights anyway - and put in that position by their own parents.

Also deplorable. Less murderous, but heinous just as well.

(September 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm)John V Wrote:

(September 8, 2013 at 11:00 am)Brakeman Wrote: Of course it wasn't rape back then, those women liked being corralled like cattle and forced to mate with someone they hate. It was ok because all men in that jewish society were assholes and they had no hope anyway? (i.e. that's the way it was done) That's an excellent argument John V.

Try to justify your horrible imaginary god from the eyes of a captured girl from one of Israel's conquests. Explain to us how she was not raped by her father's killers, but instead fell in love with them, withing 30 days, and chose to give her body, love, and trust to the soldier. That is so believable, but it must be true if your god is not an ass.

You ignore the point about arranged marriage. By your standards, those women were going to be raped on their wedding nights anyway - and put in that position by their own parents.

Sure, the theocratic society that taught that fathers could condemn a daughter to a lifetime of misery and rape, is equally disgusting, and a god that wouldn't correct such an injustice is even more the asshole.

(September 8, 2013 at 2:39 pm)Brakeman Wrote:

(September 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm)John V Wrote: You ignore the point about arranged marriage. By your standards, those women were going to be raped on their wedding nights anyway - and put in that position by their own parents.

Sure, the theocratic society that taught that fathers could condemn a daughter to a lifetime of misery and rape, is equally disgusting, and a god that wouldn't correct such an injustice is even more the asshole.

Why would such a condition exist, if god was there from the start?
Oh wait....

JohnV, there's such a thing called Existential Rights. Look it up.

Pocaracas makes a good point. God was apparently able to communicate his wills and wishes to the masses via the Biblical writings (albeit in a time when his presence could not be confirmed in the tangible world), and instead of setting the golden standard for how people should treat other people---he provides Supporting Decrees on How to Enslave and Rape one another?

How can you believe your own assertions based on the 'nature' of the god you supposedly know?