Pathfinder

Just dropped in for a few thoughts and then I shall fly away. I am stating from the perspective of the atheist, so this is not intended to debate on the veracity of religion nor incite such a debate.  

Regarding the idea of objective morality and how does one “enforce” or “convince” others to follow it. From the perspective of an atheist, religion has the same burden of proof. As there is no evidence to prove gods existence, any individuals from any religion are the ones espousing the morality and claiming it is objective. Not their deity. Therefore how does that individual “enforce” or “convince” others to follow their version of objective morality. Saying god said so is not sufficient, as the atheist does not have convincing evidence god exists, and thereby has no cause to be convinced based on such deity.

So how does this atheist (myself in particular as atheism is not a monolith and there are many systems of morality) structure their objective morality and “convince” others? By starting with there is not an objective morality, but we can examine whether something is moral objectively. I lean towards Matt Dillahunty. Basically we take chess as an example. Chess is a game with arbitrary rules that we all agree on. Once the rules are agreed upon, we can then objectively decide whether certain moves are objectively better or worse in a given circumstance. So we can as a society determine a goal. We can then measure our actions against the goal. The goal is subjective, while the measured actions are objective. This leaves room for morality to evolve, change and grow with society’s progression. 

@Frustration To get a better understanding of this, I suggest looking into Matt Dillahunty. If you would like to learn more about how nihilism can actually be a very positive outlook, please look into Forrest Valkai. I myself am not a nihilist, but there are a few videos of Forrest Valkai explaining that view very well. 

29 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

 

, "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. "

 

So you do have a supreme authority .  I could ask why you think I should be morally bound by the laws of evolutionary development any more then the laws of gravity. But the that's really an argument about the legitimacy of a particular authority not that there is one. 

 Since we apparently both agree perhaps we should move this  Discussion on to something else.  

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.

6 minutes ago, bmcclure7 said:

"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"

 In the absence of authority what right have you Or me to assert any kind of moral truth. You can have personal moral preferences for this sure.  And in a sense those matter as they matter to you personally as an individual. But they'd be meaningless for anyone else. Put it simply what right have you to say something is right wrong?   Give me one example of a system of moralities it does not depend on authority. 

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 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

 Again I'm not saying that The mere presence of a supreme authority Tells you what is moral.  Please actually read my post.  I'm saying that in that order to say that morality applies to anyone other than you  It must come From a higher authority than you. 

 

Consider these 2 arguments 

Argument one

Person A.  You shouldn't do that it's illegal.

 Son of Sam.  The president himself came to me and told me  It was legal. 

 

 Argument 2

Person A   I would prefer that you'd stop killing women.

 

Son of Sam . So?

In former argument they're is a higher authority that both sides claiming to speak for.  One of them is clearly wrong and the other right and it maybe possibly to determine which or it may not. Either way there is an right answer even if neither side can determine it.

 

In the second argument.  There is no right or wrong answer because there is no answer.  Neither side is appealing to higher authority they speak for themselves and there own preferences.  There is no debate, person a wants son of sam to stop killing, Son of Sam However prefers to continue.  The end .

Do you understand. 

 

 People may disagree what is legal  Or even on what they should follow the laws of the United States or the laws of Canada.   But in the absence of a governmental authority,  What is or is not legal is meaningless. 

 Similarly in absence of supreme authority what is or is not moral is meaningless.  

 

 

"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".

 If that is what you conclude then you must also thereby conclude that morality is meaningless which  makes me wonder why you're here arguing about something that's meaningless.    Let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 

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.

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

That my point any moral system with a supreme authority is arbitrary.  

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:

2 hours ago, bmcclure7 said:

 Its mere existence means that definitive moral answers or plausible,  its absence means that there can be moral answers so let every man do what is right in his own eyes. 

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".

37 minutes ago, CameronUluvara said:

Because it's about Jasnah's intent, not the killers. She walked out of her palace and went to find men to kill.

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.

5 minutes ago, Experience said:

If there was a law that you couldn't kill a bear unless it was in self defence, would you think it was okay for someone to go and agitate a bear by taking one of it's cubs to the point where it tries to attack them and they then kill the bear?

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.

4 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Yeah, I agree. I think Jasnah was wrong to do what she did, but her actions weren't enough to mitigate the men's guilt in attacking her.

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!

3 minutes ago, Nameless said:

So you believe that it would be right to take any actions towards the thief that would be right if they had, for example, stolen that same item off of your porch right in front of you?

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 minutes ago, Nameless said:

Did you leave it outside knowing that it would be stolen, with the intent for it to be stolen? I would find it hypocritical for you to complain about that thing being stolen, but the person who stole it still did something wrong.

Let me ask another question:

Would it be right to leave something outside and then hide near it, waiting for someone to come along and steal it so you can beat them up?

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.

3 minutes ago, CameronUluvara said:

You can't equate that; we're talking about intent.

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.

28 minutes ago, CameronUluvara said:

I agree that to the men lies blame, but it's also true that Jasnah sought out men with the intent of killing them. I think this pertains to the Way of Kings quote, "As I fear not a child with a weapon he cannot lift, so I do not fear the mind of a man who does not think."  Perhaps it's reading Eragon that's got me thinking this way, but what authority did she have to name herself judge, jury, and executioner? Can it really be called self-defense when 1: those men were never a threat to her 2: she purposefully denied all protection and placed herself in harm's way specifically for the purpose of killing?

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.

28 minutes ago, CameronUluvara said:

I find this as distasteful as most Western systems. Why should anyone's guilt be judged by the skill of their lawyer? But all systems are flawed. Really, this whole debate is unnecessary, as the differences between systems hardly matter (in terms of human behavior) as long as it's consistent.  

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.

On 4/23/2022 at 11:49 PM, CameronUluvara said:

I'll start by saying there's a lot of different ways to judge morality. On the question of morality as a whole, that would be easiest to discuss first with the Jasnah incident. If you study philosophy or theology (as I did), you'll notice that all the major philosophies and religions can be divided into three categories. These categories are based on whether morality is ultimately judged by intent, action, or result. For example, Utilitarianism (morality is doing what's best for the majority, or causing more good than harm) judges based on the result of your action. If you benefited the majority of people, moral. If you hurt the majority, immoral. This philosophy obviously isn't as popular anymore, but it's still pretty storming useful! As a side note, people most often judge by intent, governments by action, and philosophies by result. I say all this to tell you that this is what Jasnah is saying, in a roundabout way. Shallan then reads many philosophers who talk about this and comes to the conclusion that morality should be judged by intent, as most people do, and she finds Jasnah's intent to be evil.

Jasnah sought out men to kill. She knew the men were 'evil' and sought to stop them.. She intentionally created opportunity for the men to commit 'evil'. The men took that opportunity. She killed them for it.

Her intent was to cause men to do evil things and to kill them. Her action was killing and breaking the law. Her result was defending herself and her ward, stopping evil men from preying on the travelers on that road, and discouraging other men from taking their place. Under utilitarianism then, by her result, she was moral. She caused more good than harm. But many say that killing is inherently wrong, or that causing men to commit evil is evil...…judge her as you will.

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.

6 minutes ago, Ixthos said:

I'm more than happy to continue this in PMs if you wish, but just as you are worried I missed the point of the fallacy I am worried you have missed the point of my post. I know about this fallacy, and many others as you no doubt do too, but I am concerned with the frequent tendency of people to misuse fallacies, to say something is an example of a given fallacy when it isn't an example of that fallacy, and being unable to explain why it is without resorting to some form of handwave. I gave examples of things I believe you would agree aren't examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and I appreciate you may not have the time or energy to discuss this here now, but your objection wasn't so much to address my points but rather to say "I think you missed the point," which I feel is itself not recognising the point of my post. I'm more than happy to continue this in PM, but I will briefly list my opening to our PM here in brief:

 

Example of the No True Scotsman fallacy - moving the goal posts for a category which has nothing to do with the category:

• No true Scotsman eats his porridge with sugar - the only criteria for being a Scotsman is to be a native born of Scotland, porridge has no play in it. They may not be fitting the ideal one may have of how Scotsmen SHOULD live, but that doesn't dismiss them from that category

Example of a thing which aren't the No True Scotsman fallacy - rejecting something from a category because 

• No true pacifist delights in causing harm to someone - pacifists by definition don't want to cause harm to someone, so if someone does then no matter what they themselves claim - or any number of people they know who likewise call themselves pacifists even if they enjoy arming people - they aren't pacifists

 

Which do you think Christianity fits in? If you claim Christianity is in the first category, what term then would you use for someone who DOES follow the teachings and walk the path of Yeshua? Should there be a term to distinguish those who Yeshua would approve of and those who He would not, as after all those would by definition be entirely determined by a single criterion that can be known?

 

Anyhow, I will PM you now, but I felt this issue needed to be addressed as far to often fallacies are misused and those who don't know anything about them other then seeing how they are used in online debates begin to miss the entire point of why those fallacies are addressed, and may themselves then fall into the fallacy fallacy in further discussions.

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. 

3 hours ago, Ixthos said:

@Nameless, @Pathfinder, @AquaRegia, and @Orlion Blight if I may weigh in on this briefly, I think there are a few things that haven't been brought up that need to be considered:

• A key belief in Christianity is that Yeshua, Jesus, is the one who decides who is and who isn't a Christian - so if you are a Christian the fact that not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian is a matter both Yeshua and several of the epistles written by the Apostles addressed at length;
• The "No True Scotsman fallacy" is very often used in a flawed manner, and ostensibly prevents anyone who claims to be a part of a group to be disqualified from that group. 

 

Lets look at the Scotsman example first. Lets suppose there was someone who claimed to be a pacifist. If this pacifist was someone who occasionally hit other people, or didn't physically harm others but instead psychologically abused them, they certainly wouldn't fit the definition of a pacifist - an emotionally abusive husband who claims to abhor causing harm to others is most certainly not a pacifist, even if they object to war. Yet what would happen if you said they weren't a pacifist? Obviously you would be correct, but if they objected, or if others from a society they were a part of objected to you claiming they weren't pacifists - and they would prove it by passing the fist to you! Or someone claims to be a rationalist and is in a society of rationalists, but engaged in non-rational behaviour that the group nevertheless claimed was rational. What about a vegan who knowingly eats meat on certain occasions and claims those occasions don't count - are they a vegan? We can clearly see that self identification is not enough, as they are violating the spirit of the idea they claim to represent. A Scotsman is someone who comes from Scotland, and that can't be changed by their actions. But someone who claims to be a part of a group that identifies with certain traits and tries to live up to them, you must consider their actions, even if they are part of a subset of that group that doesn't see anything wrong with their actions. A vegan isn't someone who calls themselves a vegan, a vegan is someone who doesn't eat animal products. A rationalist isn't someone who calls themselves a rationalist but rather is someone who adheres to the principles of rationalism. A pacifist isn't someone  who calls themselves a pacifist, they are someone who seeks not to cause harm to anyone. A Christian isn't someone who claims to be Christian, a Christian is someone who follows Yeshua. Self identification with a group based on an ideology isn't enough, you must match the standards.

 

Now, in Christianity it is important to remember several things - Yeshua taught that, on the last day, when everyone comes before Him in judgement, He will send several of them away, telling them to depart as He never knew them. And they will object, saying "But we did so many things in Your Name!" And He will say they didn't know Him, they didn't feed Him when He was starving, cloth Him when He was cold, comfort Him when He was in prison. And they will ask when He was starving, when He was cold, when He was in prison, and He will point out to them that when they denied these things to those who needed them, they denied them to Him. Now, are those self-proclaimed Christians this account, who Yeshua Himself claimed knew nothing of Him, would you say they are Christians? Doesn't Yeshua get to decide who does and doesn't follow Him?

The epistles likewise cover this topic, talking about false teachers and Brothers and Sisters who stray from the path and are in danger - thus this topic is covered over and over again in the Bible.

 

Now, you may say this doesn't count if Christianity isn't true, that if Christianity isn't true then Yeshua doesn't decide this. However, then you must consider then two things - the first being that the examples given above about pacifists, rationalists, and vegans must also then allow for people who like to harm people either physically or emotionally while decrying violence are pacifists, that people who engage in irrational behaviour can be rationalists, and people who choose to occasionally eat meat are vegans. And secondly, that Christianity has, as a core belief whether Christianity is right or wrong, the belief that not everyone who claims to be Christian is a Christian - that those who say "follow Yeshua" must also believe that Yeshua said some will claim to follow Him but actually aren't. Christianity is the belief that Yeshua decides who is and isn't a Christian, not others who may or may not be Christians (remember also when Yeshua was told by His disciples that there were those casting out demons in Yeshua's name but weren't among His disciples, and He told the disciples to leave them alone and not try to stop them). And if Christianity isn't true, then the ones who are Christian are still correct in that Yeshua still gave the standards He would use to judge who are and aren't His followers.

 

[Edit] Also, consider this: Muslims believe that Yeshua and the disciples were all devout Muslims, while in Christianity Yeshua is the Word of God and the disciples were the first Christians - those two claims are in contradiction. So, under three models, which were the disciples? Bearing in mind that millions of Christians and Muslims claim the disciples followed their faith - so does millions of people all claiming the same thing change anything?

• If neither Christianity nor Islam is true, what were the disciples?
• If Islam is true, what happens to the Christian claim, despite millions of Christians claiming them?
• If Christianity is true, what happens to the Muslim claim, despite millions of Muslims claiming them?

 

Arguments from a group, despite their size, are not enough to change the objective nature of reality. If every vegan claimed beef was actually vegan that wouldn't change beef to being plant matter.

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. 

So for informational purposes only and not meaning to be critical in anyway:

18 hours ago, Nameless said:

if a TV preacher proclaims themselves as Christian,

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. 

18 hours ago, Nameless said:

their every action shows that the primary focus of their life is gaining as many material possessions as they can,

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

18 hours ago, Nameless said:

then I would say that they are almost certainly not a Christian.

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.

1 hour ago, Nameless said:

I would say that belief and actions should go hand in hand. That's not to say that no Christian does acts that are against the Bible, but that a Christian should do acts that are consistent with the Bible. To take one of your examples, if a TV preacher proclaims themselves as Christian, but their every action shows that the primary focus of their life is gaining as many material possessions as they can, then I would say that they are almost certainly not a Christian.

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. 

To be clear, this is not meant to offer commentary on any religion. Just to clarify the purpose of the "no true scotsman fallacy". 

The point of such a fallacy is exclude malfactors or negative association from a group by saying someone who does a certain practice is not a "true" member of the group. The reason this is a fallacy is because the individuals taking the negative action can certainly believe themselves to be "true" members of the group as well as others can view them as "true" members of the group thus disagreeing with the assertion that they are not "true" members of the group. Further this dissociation can result in the "true" label being a moving goal post that is moved so often as to lose all meaning. 

The fallacy thereby is to show that the idea of "true" membership is an effort of deflection in order to absolve oneself of responsibility for the actions of individuals that are members of one's group that they claim membership of. 

Once again, not stating this applies to any religion, nor any post. Just explaining the mechanism of the fallacy.

Edit: just in case so to show I am only explaining how it works and not offering commentary on any group or individual, I have linked the wiki definition of the fallacy below that says the same thing

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman#:~:text=No true Scotsman%2C or appeal,by excluding the counterexample improperly.

Quote from wiki article:

"An appeal to purity is commonly associated with protecting a preferred group. Scottish national pride may be at stake if someone regularly considered to be Scottish commits a heinous crime. To protect people of Scottish heritage from a possible accusation of guilt by association, one may use this fallacy to deny that the group is associated with this undesirable member or action. "No true Scotsman would do something so undesirable"; i.e., the people who would do such a thing are tautologically (definitionally) excluded from being part of our group such that they cannot serve as a counterexample to the group's good nature."

Atheist. It never sat well with me the sense that religion is an end to questions. That built into many is the implicit and in some cases explicit belief to just take things as they are and do what you are told. I have also found it rather ironic that across just about every religion's mythology, that there is a trickster god or figure that is portrayed by the other dieties as negative simply for helping and giving knowledge to humanity. Here are but a few examples:

Native American: Coyote

Native American: Raven

Greek: Prometheus

JewishCatholic/Christian: Serpent 

African: Anansi

African: Hare

Chinese: Monkey King

Celtic: Lugh

There is a possessive sense regarding knowledge and keeping "mortals" ignorant. For myself, those traits i simply cannot abide by.

7 minutes ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

I'm not saying that it is impossible.  Just that we haven't seen it and it doesn't seem to line up with the WoBs available.  But there are so many RAFO answers that it is still well in the realm of possibility.   

I would love to see more magics making bodies more durable.   Heck I really want to see a kandra with an aluminum true body get hit by a shardblade if only to read the shock and thoughts of the shardbearer as their blade fuzzes and then suddenly gets stopped throwing off their entire attack.   

I think the out of the box thinking is great for the cosmere.  Just trying to think through the WoBs we have and gather what info we do have.  

It lines up perfect with the WoB from my perspective. Every instance in every WoB refers to the radiant using the power on a different person. In the example of the windrunner infusing the stone, that is due to the investiture being keyed to the windrunner. Hence the interference. That is why the windrunner could draw the stormlight fueling the surge in the stone back, but another radiant could not. 

Basically yes affecting investiture keyed to other beings is difficult for cohesion and tension. But when the investitures identity is keyed to the user, there should be nothing holding it back. It's the user's investiture. And we have examples across all magic systems that support that 

But the reason I said to move on, is discussing this isn't the point of the thread and is down to interpretation of the WoB. So I didn't see the need to belabor the points made.

24 minutes ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

It would be pretty awesome if it comes to work that way.

However comparing it to gravitation when we have seen gravitation used on others besides themselves.   Note this from the coppermind on gravitation.  It specifically mentions gravitation being usable on other beings.  

I hear the evidence of "Stonesinew"  I am not saying it is impossible however I don't see it being all that practical especially once one has access to their own plate.  

What is possible will be found out with the stonewards book and they are the order I am most intrigued by so I anxiously await that.  Comparing gravitation, where we know it can effect other beings, and tensions / cohesion, where we have WoB saying it doesn't work on flesh, is really apples to oranges in the case.  They are still both fruits but their similarities pretty well stop there.  

I would be stoked to see the opposite defense.  Just turn into a blob of goo that the fullborn couldn't get ahold of to hurt anyway... you can't hurt water.  Fullborn probably will have an easier time getting through stonesinew than killing a puddle with eyes.  

Every WoB is regarding an external use of the power fighting against the investiture associated with an individual other than the radiant using the surge. Including the stone example. 
 

My intention was never to say a stoneward or taln would beat a full born. I thought I made that abundantly clear in my initial post. I was just surprised no one considered employing the surge in that way. Clearly it seems because some believe it does not function in that matter. I disagree. 
 

Please feel free to continue in the thread of fullborn versus radiant. 

14 minutes ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

So I pulled this from the coppermind website and the reference for it is some book signing at Orem. 

That was from cohesion however under tension it again references that anything holding stormlight is very difficult to effect.  Aside from cohesion specifying "not human flesh" it must be noted that being filled with a magnitude of stormlight is a prerequisite of being able to use any surges in the first place.  

I 100% agree with this.  Being an earth bender is better than being the dang juggernaut anyways... plus once you gain access to plate it would be horribly redundant to harden your skin inside of it.  

For the longest time people thought all surges were unable to be used while in shardplate because investiture interferes with investiture. Then it was show it was the identity of the armor not being associated with the radiant that prevents it. So a radiant wearing their own shardplate could surge bind to their hearts content. 

So yes if a stoneward wanted to turn someone else into mud, they cannot.

But a radiant can use their own surge on themselves without issue. Otherwise edgedancers cannot use Abrasion,  windrunners and skybreakers cannot fly, and so on.

Personally I think the nickname of "stonesinew" is a pretty big hint. Not "stonearmor" or "stoneclothes". Its "stonesinew"

36 minutes ago, Tamriel Wolfsbaine said:

I would love that to be a use for it.  Do you think it would take more or less stormlight to harden ones own skin or to harden, to the same degree, clothing?  I imagine both would make mobility pretty difficult indeed.  It may be unlikely to help against someone moving quicker than your reflexes can help but it would be neat to be able to read about someone who sees a volley of arrows coming at them and decides to stand there and let them bounce off of them like superman.  

Edit:  

Beyond that if you could effect others the same way you could simply reach out and turn any foe into a hard plank for a moment and be able to plan your next move from there.  

I feel like it would be better and easier to do it to yourself rather than clothes as we see when kaladin uses gravitation, it steadily feeds off of his stormlight while if you infuse it into a stone, it will deplete based on how much stormlight you put into it. Also szeth commented how it took more stormlight to infuse an object than use the surge on himself. So it would be more cost effective to use it on yourself.

Well there is a whole order (stonewards) known for pursuing unwinnable situations and coming out on top. Holding entire passes against enemies by themselves. And there is the herald of that order whose literal nick name is "Stonesinew" after all.......Just saying.....

Kaladin puts the surge of gravitation on himself all the time without investiture issues. The problem with cohesion and tension is in regards to placing it on someone else. I don't see any reason why a radiant or Herald could not increase the tension strength of their body. 

So first to stress, not saying this to imply this changes anything or is a win. Just something  I thought of that I’m surprised no one thought of.

So cohesion takes thing that are “solid” or “rigid” and makes them like liquid or malleable right? Tension takes that which is flexible or “soft” and makes it rigid by lining up the axi. Like taking a piece of paper and making it like steel. 
 

Couldn’t a radiant or herald with tension make their body so strong or “tense” that no amount of force would dent them?