why do christians really wonder why they aren't liked?

As I said, if laws could actually do what you say they intend them to do, I would agree with you. But they cannot, they too know that they cannot, therefore it doesn't logically follow that the "intention" you assign is even logically possible, let alone a correct "motivating" factor. Their goal is not to remove your free will.
 
AnyOldIron II said:
If you argue that often women are made into victims by those purveying the porn, it doesn't change that it wouldn't take any of my free will away to view porn if you made it illegal.

It does if the forces of law and order enforce that law, by closing down porno studies and distributors. It limits my access to porno and thus can affect my 'free will' to enjoy porno.

This idea originally came from a Simpsons episode where Springfield's holyrollers decided to close down the town's burlesque house on Xtian moral grounds.

By closing down that burlesque house, and banning burlesque from Springfield, are they not affecting an individual's free will to enjoy burlesque?
Click to expand...
No, one has the free will to seek out burlesque regardless of the law. You attempt to equate easy access to free will, they are not one in the same.
 
As I said, if laws could actually do what you say they intend them to do, I would agree with you. But they cannot, they too know that they cannot, therefore it doesn't logically follow that the "intention" you assign is even logically possible, let alone a correct "motivating" factor. Their goal is not to remove your free will.

Ok, going off at a tangent to demonstrate this... If intentions don't matter, why do we have laws against 'attempted murder' and 'conspiracy to commit terrorism' laws.
Another point. Are you seriously suggesting that when Xtians campaign, for example, to close a burlesque house on xtian moral grounds, they don't intend to close that burlesque house and limit people's access to this morality?
 
No, one has the free will to seek out burlesque regardless of the law. You attempt to equate easy access to free will, they are not one in the same.

Ok, thought experiment to test this.

Imagine there is only one burlesque house in town, and I have no transport to leave town. Xtians campaign to, and successfully close, the house.

I still have the will to see burlesque.

How can it be said that the xtians not limited my free will?
 
Well, my intention to leave the office for 5pm has certainly been thwarted, but I'm going now, its friday happy hour at the pub and much as I enjoy discussing philosophy, a Guiness is calling out my name....

Have a good weekend Damo, continue this monday.....
 
AnyOldIron II said:
As I said, if laws could actually do what you say they intend them to do, I would agree with you. But they cannot, they too know that they cannot, therefore it doesn't logically follow that the "intention" you assign is even logically possible, let alone a correct "motivating" factor. Their goal is not to remove your free will.

Ok, going off at a tangent to demonstrate this... If intentions don't matter, why do we have laws against 'attempted murder' and 'conspiracy to commit terrorism' laws.
Another point. Are you seriously suggesting that when Xtians campaign, for example, to close a burlesque house on xtian moral grounds, they don't intend to close that burlesque house and limit people's access to this morality?
Click to expand...
The intention you assign doesn't logically follow.

If you intend to murder somebody then you do.

However you state that they intend to take away free will by making laws. They don't, they know it cannot be done by making laws. They know that people will break them regardless of the fact a law has passed. Their "intent" is to do what they know to be the impossible?

Your intent is to argue that christians that do this self-contradict. I would agree IF the laws could do as you say, then we could assign such an intention. However they cannot, christians know that they cannot, therefore their intention must be something other than the removal of free will.

Your premise is flawed and you refuse to admit it because you desperately want to think ill of people who have "contradictions".
 
AnyOldIron II said:
No, one has the free will to seek out burlesque regardless of the law. You attempt to equate easy access to free will, they are not one in the same.

Ok, thought experiment to test this.

Imagine there is only one burlesque house in town, and I have no transport to leave town. Xtians campaign to, and successfully close, the house.

I still have the will to see burlesque.

How can it be said that the xtians not limited my free will?
Click to expand...
Because you can seek it out elsewhere. Christians know that somebody would open up an illegal burlesque, you will then have the ability to seek it out and enjoy it, just as you can with drugs.

If there was only one place providing legal marijuana to users in a city, the city passed a law to make it illegal, regardless of the reason, it will not make marijuana disappear and it will not make users stop using the drug. We know this to be true.

We also know that burlesque houses exist even in places where they are illegal.

The intention you assign to christians assumes that they are so stupid they believe that nobody will choose to break the law and thus they will remove your "free will" by making the law.

Removing an official or unofficial sanction of something does not take your free will to seek it out.
 
Damocles said:
Because you can seek it out elsewhere. Christians know that somebody would open up an illegal burlesque, you will then have the ability to seek it out and enjoy it, just as you can with drugs.

If there was only one place providing legal marijuana to users in a city, the city passed a law to make it illegal, regardless of the reason, it will not make marijuana disappear and it will not make users stop using the drug. We know this to be true.

We also know that burlesque houses exist even in places where they are illegal.

The intention you assign to christians assumes that they are so stupid they believe that nobody will choose to break the law and thus they will remove your "free will" by making the law.

Removing an official or unofficial sanction of something does not take your free will to seek it out.
Click to expand...
It's not just which choice one makes, it's why one makes the choice. At least according to the Xtians, anyway. If one "freely" (sic) chooses not to steal one's neighbor's garden gnome, the decision matters not at all if motivated by anything other than concern for the neighbor's anguish over the lost gnome.

That's the problem with Xtian morality in general. It hinges, not on behavior, but on emotion and motivation.

AOI is, as usual, quite right. They violate their own (expressed) moral code by advocating these coercive blue laws.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It's not just which choice one makes, it's why one makes the choice. At least according to the Xtians, anyway. If one "freely" (sic) chooses not to steal one's neighbor's garden gnome, the decision matters not at all if motivated by anything other than concern for the neighbor's anguish over the lost gnome.

That's the problem with Xtian morality in general. It hinges, not on behavior, but on emotion and motivation.

AOI is, as usual, quite right. They violate their own (expressed) moral code by advocating these coercive blue laws.
Click to expand...
I disagree for the reason expressed earlier, the supposed "removal of free will" isn't a possibility, and unless you can reasonably argue that christians do not live in reality they too know this. Their goal is not to "remove the free will" of others. It can't be, unless you believe in such a fundamental disconnect.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It's not just which choice one makes, it's why one makes the choice. At least according to the Xtians, anyway. If one "freely" (sic) chooses not to steal one's neighbor's garden gnome, the decision matters not at all if motivated by anything other than concern for the neighbor's anguish over the lost gnome.

That's the problem with Xtian morality in general. It hinges, not on behavior, but on emotion and motivation.

AOI is, as usual, quite right. They violate their own (expressed) moral code by advocating these coercive blue laws.
Click to expand...

that's not aoi's argument. He's not saying they're being coercive. He's saying a law actually eliminates the temptation or possibility of doing that thing that's outlawed. THAT is foolish and false.
 
AssHatZombie said:
that's not aoi's argument. He's not saying they're being coercive. He's saying a law actually eliminates the temptation or possibility of doing that thing that's outlawed. THAT is foolish and false.
Click to expand...
He's saying it is their "intention" to use the laws to do this. So he argues the motivation of people who he assumes are so stupid that they can't realize that laws don't actually remove free will to do things.

The argument begins false, continues false, and when taken to its logical conclusion becomes laughable.

It's the religious equivalent of saying 1/3 doesn't exist.
 
Damocles said:
He's saying it is their "intention" to use the laws to do this. So he argues the motivation of people who he assumes are so stupid that they can't realize that laws don't actually remove free will to do things.

The argument begins false, continues false, and when taken to its logical conclusion becomes laughable.
Click to expand...

I believe Ornot and aoi stem from the same enfeebled stock.
 
Damocles said:
I disagree for the reason expressed earlier, the supposed "removal of free will" isn't a possibility, and unless you can reasonably argue that christians do not live in reality they too know this. Their goal is not to "remove the free will" of others. It can't be, unless you believe in such a fundamental disconnect.
Click to expand...
LOL! Seeing as how you know I don't believe in free will -- not in the sense you're using it here, anyhow -- this is a bit disingenuous. :p

There is no fundamental disconnect to disconnect.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
LOL! Seeing as how you know I don't believe in free will -- not in the sense you're using it here, anyhow -- this is a bit disingenuous. :p

There is no fundamental disconnect to disconnect.
Click to expand...
Yet you say that Anyold is "right" when he argues that christians are working to remove "free will" by creating these laws and because such is their intention they are "contradictory"?

So, one person can argue "free will" as it is used in this context and be "right" but another cannot because you want to disagree regardless of reality.

1/3 again.

You guys have taken lessons in argument from Dixie, admit it.
 
Ornot said:
owned_help.jpg
Click to expand...
.
 
LOL! Seeing as how you know I don't believe in free will -- not in the sense you're using it here, anyhow -- this is a bit disingenuous.

Neither do I.

But it is an acceptable axiom to use when discussing Xtians.... as they do...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top