Pathfinder

Members
  • Content count

    4,733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Pathfinder last won the day on March 7 2020

Pathfinder had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,019 Voidbringer

5 Followers

About Pathfinder

  • Rank
    Lord of Book Quotes

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Again, you are applying "authority" with punishment. That morality is a limiting concept meant to be enforced. I guess the fact that you view it in the light is rather telling in regards to what you envision a supreme authority is. Evolutionary morality and human social intelligence shows why morals develop along side human behavior. What was moral 100 years ago is not moral today. Does that mean there is a supreme authority that changed its mind? To me, no it does not. It means the individuals involved and the society evolved, and the morals changed and evolved alongside the individuals and society. Edit: research in the cognitive and societal interactions of crows, orcas, octopuses, dolphins, and plants are changing the way we understand what it is to be sapient and moral. All without a supreme authority.
  2. Because you are presenting morality in a lens of a negative, or limiter that is to be enforced, thereby there must be means to validate the "punishment" to enforce the morality. Basically if there lacks a means of just enforcement, then without the "eye of sauron" on everyone, then everyone will do what they will without meaning. Ring of Gyges essentially. No one can comment or limit anyone because no one can absolutely prove why they get to right? Thing is, I take the perspective of the emerging field of cognitive science, and the further understanding and development of sapience with societal interaction and population growth. Morality as an evolutionary attribute grown and developed over time along side human social intelligence.
  3. I understand what you were saying. And my point is you are claiming that Joe schmo saying what is moral is meaningless because Joe schmo said it. But since we cannot verify that there is a supreme authority, then saying a supreme authority has to assert absolute morality has as much credence as Joe schmo. You are the one stating it. You are no different than Joe schmo. Now if you want to believe that suddenly means morality has no meaning, you are certainly entitled to but that is your prerogative, not my own. They are not mutually exclusive. Edit: so just in case, the reason they are not mutually exclusive is you define that there must be an authority to give validity, or a "reason" to follow the morals. And based on that premise that it must follow that without an authority, then morals do not matter. The first statement is an assumption. You believe that an authority is required. But if an authority is not required, then the absence of the authority then does not inform on whether or not morals matter. The statement that morals can arise without an authority is just as valid and there is loads of research that have shown signs of such.
  4. So I'll be honest, your post frankly confused me. Basically we cannot verify that a supreme being exists right? So stating that an individuals supreme being is against rape is effectively the same thing as an individual stating that their morality is against rape. It has the same "authority " persay. The rapist could just reply that their supreme being is the real one says rape is ok and your supreme being is a figment of your imagination. A prime example of this is the Son of Sam. His supreme being told him to kill women. His supreme beings existence cannot be verified, so we are left with this individuals word that it is good for him to kill women. Other individuals supreme being disagreed with this but again as we cannot verify the existence of those supreme beings, we have no reason to believe them over the son of Sam except that maybe our own personal morality or supreme being aligns with those saying killing those women are wrong or right. But where I really get confused is it looks like that is what you were saying by stating that a supreme authority is arbitrary. Yet below: Seems to state the opposite. That without a supreme authority, there can be no moral answers. That a supreme authority's existence means there can be definitive moral answers. But my thing is if you cannot verify the existence of a specific moral authority thereby to verify those moral absolutes, then the supreme authority is no more or less valid than any average "mortal".
  5. Her intent did not place them at that alley. Her intent did not arm them with those weapons. Her intent did not move their bodies to approach her. Her intent did not lift the the guys arm holding the knife. And her intent did not drive the knife towards her chest. Jasnah cannot control their minds or their bodies. They are not purely ruled by base urges. Even animals have been shown to resist base urges. So Jasnah's intent has nothing to do with the actions those men chose to take.
  6. I am responding to this because it illustrates the point I am trying to make perfectly. In your example, you actively antagonized and harassed the bear into taking an action. In the Jasnah example she did no such thing. So in the bear situation you caused it to attack you, while in Jasnah's situation they chose to attack her.
  7. I respect that is your beliefs. My follow up is just to clarify one thing. Not commenting on whether it was right or wrong of her to do what she did. I believe that to be a separate discussion. Also I am not ascribing "guilt/innocence " or trying to ascribe blame. The only thing I intended to offer commentary was the idea of her walking down that alley wanting to kill those men, caused those men to attack her. Which I am stating is not the case. Nothing she did in that scene constituted provoking or causing those individuals to attack her with lethal force. The only reason i even used the word evil, was because that was the word employed in that post. So just wanted to clarify that. Thanks!
  8. Personally i am not commenting on right or wrong. What I am commenting on is the statement that jasnah caused the evil men to do evil. Which is why her intent doesn't matter. Whether she was gleefully picturing mutilating the men or thinking of pink fluffy clouds doesn't change the actions those men took. She could have plotted getting a new pencil prior and it would not have changed their actions one bit. That is why I can't wrap my head around the idea that some people believe she caused them to attack her.
  9. In any part of your example, did you antagonize the thief? Did you coerce them? No. So you did not make them steal. That is the issue I am commenting on. My point is we aren't. The killers had no way to know jasnahs intent nor what's in her mind. Jasnah does not have mind control abilities. So jansahs intent has nothing to do with making the killers commit a crime. She didn't do anything to make them do anything. Which is why I am continually perplexed by the statement that she made them attack her.
  10. Whether she sought them out or not is immaterial in regards to whether or not she caused them to attack her. They set up shop there. They have done the action before and they did the action again. She did not make them do anything. Because the individuals whose guilt is being discussed typically lacks the skill to defend themselves. You would not ask a home owner to repair their own roof. Could they attempt it? Surely. But it would make far more sense to provide them with an individual skilled in the practice to adequately accomplish the task. Thereby an individual should be represented by a skilled attorney and also prosecuted by a skilled attorney.
  11. So at the end of the day, you are perfectly entitled to believe the scene was how you do and I respect that. I just tend to see this perspective pop up and it just never makes sense to me. So I will comment on it and then move on to the point of the thread. I honestly and genuinely do not understand how Jasnah, walking down the alley, whether with riches or poor, elaborate clothing or full on naked, could be viewed as causing the men attack her. Her intent is immaterial. Her reason for being there is immaterial. The killers have killed before at that location multiple times. They trapped the women. They struck with lethal intent first. Not a single thing she did made those men attack her with the intent to kill. Now that I have stated that. In regards to the hogman issue. So to reiterate the example. There are a total of five hogmen. One is grievously injured and on his death bed states three other hogmen did the deed. As there is a total of five, and one is the victim, that leaves four hogmen. Of the four remaining, three are the perpetrators, and one is innocent. I believe banishing them is a cop out, leaving the problem for someone else. I believe locking them all up is deferring the issue to a later date I believe executing them all is taking a salt the earth doctrine to avoid having to make a choice. I stated what choices I disagree with, so the next step is what would i do then? The answer is the best I can. I would try each individual individually. I would have each individual have a representative to defend themselves, and an individual to prosecute them. I would have a jury of their peers review the evidence and the evidence of character on each individual and come to ruling on each one. The result of this could be: 1. They are each found innocent so all go free 2. They are each found guilty so all are jailed 3. 1 innocent and 2 criminals are found guilty and 1 criminal goes free (and all the other permutations of this combination) 4. 3 criminals are found guilty, and 1 innocent goes free. Now to be clear, just because of how I presented it, I am not discussing it as a numbers game. What I am saying is although it is not perfect and in all likelihood can still result in an innocent being locked up, it is still the best chance at attempting to resolve the issue. In my opinion. Every hogman gets their day in court and a chance to prove themselves not a killer. Every hogman gets a chance to be considered as a killer. And every hogman has a chance of being ruled as a killer. Now I'm sure the response that will be cried out at me is "but you don't have any evidence! What you are doing is a popularity contest! Whatever hogman is liked most will be ruled innocent and those disliked most will be ruled guilty!" And that is certainly a possibility. But there is still just as much chance that the decisions could be based on reasoned experiences and not purely superficial judgements. Which is why again, I say, doing the best we can with what we have.
  12. I feel I recognize what you are saying, which is why I replied that I feel you missed the point and would like to discuss via PM. I am fully available and capable of discussing and explaining, but I feel it would serve no one and only do harm to continue the subject matter here.
  13. I feel like, from my perspective, you are missing the point of the fallacy. As I said in the prior post, at this point I fear it has reached a point of digression from the original point of the thread and given the subject matter, risks becoming problematic with each subsequent post. As PMing has come up on multiple occasions on this post, if you would like to hear my response using cookies as I mentioned, feel free to PM me.
  14. So for informational purposes only and not meaning to be critical in anyway: 1. Not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified assertion You did not offer a counter example. You did not dispute the example. You did not condemn the example. 2. Offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted example. You provided an definition of what a Christian is, in a manner to exclude the example from the group 3. Using rhetoric to hide the modification The rhetoric that hides the modification and maintains the purity of the group being discussed. Once again, just in case, I am not attacking Christianity, or claiming it is negative. This line of discussion began because an individual expressed their distaste for this practice and its perceived association with Christianity. An individual responded to that expression to say that anyone who does the distasteful practice is not a true christian. Another individual pointed out from their perspective that such a statement could fall into the "not a true scotsman fallacy". You replied in such a way as to repeat the fallacy, so I felt you did not understand the concept based on the structure of your post. I was attempting to explain the fallacy so discussion could move forward. At this point any explanation would only serve to digress this thread and I do not feel it would be beneficial. I also would certainly not want to come off as brow beating the individual who made the initial comment about "true christians". They can comment however they see fit and I fully respect if they, and you disagree with the fallacy. My only intention was to build understanding of it. I could certainly, and maybe should have, used any other example. Such as cookies. What could be inflammatory about cookies right? But regardless, what is done is done. I wish you all the best.
  15. So again, just in case, only trying to explain the fallacy and how it works. I don't think you understand what is meant by the fallacy. What you just wrote is essentially repeating it. Basically you can define being a Christian however you wish. It doesn't change that (using the example provided), that there is an individual (rich preacher), going around saying he is a Christian, to other Christians, that believe he is a Christian, and is using the group that is known as Christian to profit off of being seen as a member of Christianity. Further said individual takes actions using Christianity to back up said actions. Saying "well then he's not a true christian" doesn't change anything except claiming deniability. It doesn't stop the individual. It does not change the action. It does not end the association. It does nothing to refute the claim nor the actions. Which is why it is called a fallacy. The logic does not pan out. It proves nothing. Now again, just in case, I am not saying or offering commentary on any religion. Just trying to bring understanding regarding a rhetorical device. Edit: a just in case on top of a just in case, the fallacy uses the example of a "true scotsman". That by some guy robbing and killing people, there is a concern that the public will view people of Scottish decent negatively. To which it is said well the perpetrator is not Scottish. Then the individual who is found is Seamus O'Toole and in his wallet is his ID claiming citizenship to Scotland. To whit, the response is "well a TRUE scotsman wouldn't rob and kill". The perpetrator still robbed and killed and still did so under the label of being Scottish. Nothing was refuted or disproven. A Scottish man committed those crimes.