(December 25, 2018 at 6:19 am)Deesse23 Wrote:(December 25, 2018 at 4:20 am)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sometimes you can give someone power by assuming they rightfully have power, when you could simply say "no" to them. Kinda like a drug dealer trying to make money. He/she isn't interested in the people that say "no" every time, because there's nothing tangible to gain from it. However if they know someone will say "yes" and even commit crimes to gain the money to pay for the drugs, then that's who they're going to keep going to. And no, this wasn't an anti-drug post.
Lets stick for a secfond with your comparison:
You just compared the devil to a drug dealer and angels with drug addicts? Were the angels depending on the devil (like drug addicts)? Your god, the policeman was watching the drug dealer and his addicts, and did nothing?
However:
Addicts dont *assume the drug dealer rightfully has power*, they pretty much know that there is nothing *rightful* about a drug dealer. They despise him, but depend on their dealer. They are acting against their own interest, and they know it. Thats nothing like a charismatic devil gathering many angels around him, in order to rebel against a god that is infinitely more powerful, but just cant be arsed to do anything about it. So your comparison doenst fly anyway, nice try for an ad hoc rationalisation though, like usual.
So, please tell me more about this interesting devil guy, and those ideas that obviously sparked interest in at least 1/3 of gods angels. Probably they were better than just "worship me or burn forever"? Seems to have good leadership qualities as well, this guy. Not to mention the balls one needs to rebel against soeone you know is more powerful than yourself, because...well hes god.
Anyhow, do you have anything to substantiate your weird comparison, or did you just make this up?
The comparison is fair within their own context. Not sure where you came up with the part about God doing nothing. There's literally a war taking place and the angels are put in a position to fight for their home. Is that not appropriate? If so, why not? If someone tries to break into your home with bad intentions, how would you respond? Would you react or simply hope the police show up in time to save you? Sometimes it's necessary to fight our own battles and for good reason. It doesn't mean we're alone in it all. Add in that Satan was cast down by who? Oh, the God would you suggested did nothing.
The buyers don't have to "assume" anything. They give him power by their actions. If not, where does his/her power come from? If they can't tell drugs to anyone, how can they operate? There's an old saying about drug dealers, and I might flub it up just a bit, but here it is in context. "The best drug dealers are the ones who don't personally indulge in the product they sell." Why? Because they do not become subject to the condition, but rather enjoy the bounty of it in its fullness. As soon as they start smoking or sniffing whatever it is, they lose profit and start to create dependency on it. You've probably heard the old saying, "The first taste is always free." Why? Because of that same principle. It's not intended to be free. It's intended to trigger dependency so the subsequent interactions with the person aren't free for them. In other words, they're gaining a customer.
On that basis, your ad hoc rationalization claim is dismissed. When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it implies the statement or argument wasn't sufficient, which in this it case was explained. When you claim someone committed a logical fallacy, it also doesn't negate the original statement or argument, but rather indicates a N/A for one specific item or point. Anything else?
