RE: Hostage to fear
July 24, 2015 at 10:00 pm
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2015 at 10:08 pm by Randy Carson.)
(July 24, 2015 at 9:48 pm)Spacetime Wrote:(July 24, 2015 at 9:41 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: We can discuss WHEN people get freedom at some point, if you like, but right now, it's a red herring.
You are an adult, and I'm speaking you "like men" as you said earlier in the thread.
It's a simple question, Spacetime...
Question #3:
If it's a good thing FOR YOU to have moral choices, would you agree that requires not only that YOU have complete freedom but also the possibility of choosing either good or evil? In other words, wouldn’t our freedom be severely restricted if we could only choose good?
No... we're discussing this if you want an answer. You're injecting the idea that humans have complete freedom.
You get no answers until you tell me how these tortured and murdered and raped, helpless children have complete freedom.
Until then... your presuppositionalist script is on the shelf. I don't answer questions that you don't explain.
I don't understand your question, Randy. So if you could clarify...
Explain how these juvenile humans have complete freedom whilst being tortured, murdered, and raped. Then we'll move on.
Balls in your court, boss.
Afraid of the question, are you? And everyone in the forum can see that you are dodging the question.
People have varying degrees of freedom based upon their mental capacity. Children below the age of reason have less freedom. They have to go to school by law, for example. At age 16, we allow children to drive automobiles with varying degrees of freedom. Above 18 (or 21) minors become adults and can vote and drink alcohol legally. At 21, people can legally enter into binding contracts, etc.
On a moral level, mentally handicapped people and children below the age of reason are not culpable for their actions and thus they cannot commit personal sins. They may not actually be capable of choosing between right and wrong AT ALL (though a child may know at some level that it is wrong to pull the kitty's tail, etc.)
Now, several of your photos (female circumcision, the one with the underground prison, and N. Korea) suggested that ADULTS had made moral choices that were evil. The starving child photo suggests no MORAL choice (that we know of - though moral choices to allow this child to die MAY have been made by someone) but rather a natural consequence of drought, etc. The child is below the age of reason and famine is not his fault; therefore, there was no moral choice made by the child.
But more importantly, the problem with your photo journalism is that you are confusing two different types of freedom. Physical freedom (limited by the underground prison or the N. Korean Leaders) is not the same as moral freedom to make choices that are right and wrong. This is equivocation on your part; you are using the term "freedom" in a different way than I have used it in my questions to you regarding choices. That's a fallacy, Spacetime. You should know that.
Now, you have said, "Yes" to questions 1 & 2 regarding your own personal freedoms to make moral choices which you consider a good thing. So what about this:
Question #3:
If it's a good thing FOR YOU to have moral choices, would you agree that requires not only that YOU have complete freedom but also the possibility of choosing either good or evil? In other words, wouldn’t our freedom be severely restricted if we could only choose good?
