Loving and forgiving your enemies

[Edwardo Piet]

^Yep!

Ok, since you wear the pants in your marriage, how about you tell your husband to sit in the corner while we kiss?

Oh and... tongues or no tongues?

[Edwardo Piet]

"And say you get a chance to kill him first and that's the only way you're making it out alive out of his basement(or whatever)."

Now, apologize.

Still false dichotomy. You can kill them out of fear and still forgive them for attacking you.

And again, apologize for what? I'm not even wrong. And would being wrong be something to apologize for?

Actually, I'd be proud to admit that I was wrong. It just so happens that I'm not: You're using a nonstandard definition of forgiveness.

[Excited Penguin]

I did imply there weren't other options. Pay better attention in the future.
"And say you get a chance to kill him first and that's the only way you're making it out alive out of his basement(or whatever)."

Now, apologize.

For what?
I've not got enraged, I've remained decent and civil. I've not accused you of anything or insulted you, and you've falsely accused me of doing so. No one really needs to apologize here, but certainly not me.

You're the one taking things too personally here, if anyone ought to apologize any time soon, it will probably be you.

I already said that it's not helpful to phrase the hypothetical scenario that way. In reality those would never be the only two options. Thought experiments aren't helpful when they're constructed in that way.

If you ask me "If you had to choose between incredibly stupid option A and incredibly stupid option B, which would you pick?"

I'd say that's an incredibly stupid and loaded question and in any remotely real scenario it would be a false dichotomy.

It wasn't meant to describe reality, it was meant to shed some light on the concept of forgiveness.

You're deliberately finding grounds to disagree with me, even though there aren't any. OK, well. That's fine.

[Excited Penguin]

"And say you get a chance to kill him first and that's the only way you're making it out alive out of his basement(or whatever)."

Now, apologize.

Still false dichotomy. You can kill them out of fear and still forgive them for attacking you.

And again, apologize for what? I'm not even wrong. And would being wrong be something to apologize for?

Actually, I'd be proud to admit that I was wrong. It just so happens that I'm not: You're using a nonstandard definition of forgiveness.

I said nothing about forgiveness yet in that context. You're getting ahead of yourself and putting words in my mouth. You do this all the time. You assume I mean something even though I didn't deliberately say it. It's very hard to have an open discussion about things when you assume whatever you like about what the person you're discussing with means.

[Excited Penguin]

But I expect too much from you. Why do I even bother?

[Edwardo Piet]

It wasn't meant to describe reality, it was meant to shed some light on the concept of forgiveness.

And your definition of "forgiveness" is not what is normally meant by forgiveness.

You're deliberately finding grounds to disagree with me, even though there aren't any. OK, well. That's fine.

No I'm not, you're using a nonstandard definition of forgiveness and if you use the standard definition that me and CL are using, you are indeed raising a false dichotomy even within your very own hypothetical thought experiment.

I find it very easy to believe that you're projecting again though. You're deliberately finding grounds to disagree with me in all likelihood, you seem to get enraged when a part of you seems to be afraid that "Wow, EP might actually be wrong".

[Edwardo Piet]

I said nothing about forgiveness yet in that context. You're getting ahead of yourself and putting words in my mouth. You do this all the time. You assume I mean something even though I didn't deliberately say it. It's very hard to have an open discussion about things when you assume whatever you like about what the person you're discussing with means.

In your hypothetical scenario I would say "If someone attacked me trying to kill me and the only way I would stay alive would be to kill them, I might do that out of fear but I'd still forgive them".

So yes, you were raising a false dichotomy.

[Excited Penguin]

Evie, it's not that I think I'm wrong. It's just that you're so wrong that I frankly can't see any way to get through to you. I have no idea what the problem is, maybe it's talking to too many religious people and thus expecting anyone who genuinely disagrees with you to be as insincere and unskillful in debate as they are, particularly when I raise the level of the conversation beyond a point you can handle, apparently, and then it's like I'm the stupid one instead.

You need to be more open-minded. Maybe one day we will be able to get through to each other, but as it is, I could only properly converse with you if I took advantage of the fact that I far better understand your position than you do mine(most of the time).

[Edwardo Piet]

And, once again, apologize for what EP?

I'm the one being civil here. Why would I apologize, for what?

[Excited Penguin]

I said nothing about forgiveness yet in that context. You're getting ahead of yourself and putting words in my mouth. You do this all the time. You assume I mean something even though I didn't deliberately say it. It's very hard to have an open discussion about things when you assume whatever you like about what the person you're discussing with means.

In your hypothetical scenario I would say "If someone attacked me trying to kill me and the only way I would stay alive would be to kill them, I might do that out of fear but I'd still forgive them".

So yes, you were raising a false dichotomy.

Fear wasn't mentioned in there. Forgiveness wasn't mentioned either. And there was a reason for that. You have to take my options as they are described and not imagine anything else beyond that. You seem incapable of doing that.

Besides, it wasn't meant for you. You do understand what I want CL to, or at least I hope you do.