Human sacrifice

[catholic crusader]

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Or would you reject the human sacrifice on moral grounds and face the repercussions of your actions yourself?

[McCulloch]

If you think i'm catholic I just proved that you make false conclusion based on questionable evidence.

Ad hominem. Yes, I can be fooled into tentatively believing something based on incomplete evidence. That in no way addresses the issue being debated. However, being a rationalist, I will generally believe a position based on the evidence available, always being ready to alter that position based on further evidence.

[catholic crusader]

If you think i'm catholic I just proved that you make false conclusion based on questionable evidence.

Well if you are not catholic then you are deliberately misleading everyone calling yourself "Catholic Crusader". Such a name would bring people to the conclusion you are catholic. Are you attempting to mislead people?

I thought you knew that people make up names to use on a forum.

I notice that your user name doesn't accurately represent your real name or does it.

What happened.

[catholic crusader]

If you think i'm catholic I just proved that you make false conclusion based on questionable evidence.

Ad hominem. Yes, I can be fooled into tentatively believing something based on incomplete evidence. That in no way addresses the issue being debated. However, being a rationalist, I will generally believe a position based on the evidence available, always being ready to alter that position based on further evidence.

Ad hominem.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem as abusive, sexist, racist, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the person making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the person making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position they claim, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.

It does not include arguments posed by a person that contradict the person's actions.

Would you care to expand just a little on this answer? I believe that it is an accepted Catholic teaching that God will be the Judge of all humanity. I also believe that it is an accepted Catholic teaching that God accepts the sacrifice of the human Jesus as a substitutionary sacrifice to redeem sinners. I have also been led to believe that they teach that God is just. So, what is it? Is God unjust? Or is God not to be the Judge? Or maybe God will not accept the willing human sacrifice of Jesus to redeem sinners? You cannot have all three without doing serious violence to logic.

If you think I’m catholic I just proved that you make false conclusion based on questionable evidence.

This is not an "Ad hominem" because my argument addresses your argument.

You cannot have all three without doing serious violence to logic.

I am not catholic. You might as well tell an atheist that they are going to hell.

I just proved that you make false conclusion based on questionable evidence.

This is just like icing on the cake.

I will generally believe a position based on the evidence available

You mean you consider a screen name on a forum to be evidence?

Seriously?

HAHAHAHA that's funny.

I think you have the lowest standard of evidence for all the people I've ever met in my entire life.

Do you really consider it rational to accept any thing as evidence with such a low standard of evidence?

I think your standard of evidence will drastically revolutionalize the judicial system.

Think of the advancements that can be made in the field of science using your standard of evidence.

[catholic crusader]

That in no way addresses the issue being debated.

Please explain to me how any of your posts address the issue being debated?

Issue being debated.

Forum - Ethical Dilemmas

Title - Human sacrifice

Question - Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Or would you reject the human sacrifice on moral grounds and face the repercussions of your actions yourself?

You wrote.

Would you call a judge just who would accept a substitutionary human sacrifice to redeem an offender?

I remind you that this is an ethical dilema debate.

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Not a philisophical debate about the just nature of accepting a substitutionary human sacrifice to redeem an offender.

Would you call a judge just who would accept a substitutionary human sacrifice to redeem an offender?

Nope

Would you care to expand just a little on this answer? I believe that it is an accepted Catholic teaching that God will be the Judge of all humanity. I also believe that it is an accepted Catholic teaching that God accepts the sacrifice of the human Jesus as a substitutionary sacrifice to redeem sinners. I have also been led to believe that they teach that God is just. So, what is it? Is God unjust? Or is God not to be the Judge? Or maybe God will not accept the willing human sacrifice of Jesus to redeem sinners? You cannot have all three without doing serious violence to logic.

Again.

I remind you that this is an ethical dilema debate.

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Private Message

From: catholic crusader
To: otseng
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 5:06 pm
Subject: Possible moderator misconduct

Ethical Dilema Human Sacrifice

My original post was an ethical dilema not a philisophical debate about the Just Nature of God and I posted it in the ethical dilemas forum.

I think it's a conflict of interest for a moderator to show total disregard for forum rules in the pursuit of pushing his own religious agenda's all the while enforcing said rules upon others.


From: otseng
To: catholic crusader
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 8:06 am
Subject: Re: Possible moderator misconduct

Ethical Dilema Human Sacrifice

My original post was an ethical dilema not a philisophical debate about the Just Nature of God and I posted it in the ethical dilemas forum.

I think it's a conflict of interest for a moderator to show total disregard for forum rules in the pursuit of pushing his own religious agenda's all the while enforcing said rules upon others.

What rule was violated and where?


From: catholic crusader
To: otseng
Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: Possible moderator misconduct

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.


So again please explain to me how any of you posts address the topic of the thread?

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

[catholic crusader]

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

I'm not christian so for me no.

[daedalus 2.0]

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Or would you reject the human sacrifice on moral grounds and face the repercussions of your actions yourself?

First I would laugh at the guy.

Then, if I saw he was delusional and serious, I'd say "sure! take 'em all... first let me rape this wench first....ok, now I'm done - save me.:

Then, I would laugh and cry at the poor soul who was completely delusional, but I made him happy at the end his life.

[catholic crusader]

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Or would you reject the human sacrifice on moral grounds and face the repercussions of your actions yourself?

First I would laugh at the guy.

Then, if I saw he was delusional and serious, I'd say "sure! take 'em all... first let me rape this wench first....ok, now I'm done - save me.:

Then, I would laugh and cry at the poor soul who was completely delusional, but I made him happy at the end his life.

I don't condone glorifying rape or violence against women.

I don't know if your post is against the rules but I'm notifying the moderators.

[OnceConvinced]

If you think i'm catholic I just proved that you make false conclusion based on questionable evidence.

Well if you are not catholic then you are deliberately misleading everyone calling yourself "Catholic Crusader". Such a name would bring people to the conclusion you are catholic. Are you attempting to mislead people?

I thought you knew that people make up names to use on a forum.

I notice that your user name doesn't accurately represent your real name or does it.

What happened.

It accurately represents my stance on Christianity. Most people's names represent something unless they just typed in the first thing that came to mind. If you are not a Catholic Crusader, or not even Catholic at all, then what does that name mean? If I was to go onto a medical forum and call myself Dr, then people would naturally assume I was a doctor or otherwise question that I was trying to mislead them.

[micatala]

Moderator Comment

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Or would you reject the human sacrifice on moral grounds and face the repercussions of your actions yourself?

First I would laugh at the guy.

Then, if I saw he was delusional and serious, I'd say "sure! take 'em all... first let me rape this wench first....ok, now I'm done - save me.:

Then, I would laugh and cry at the poor soul who was completely delusional, but I made him happy at the end his life.

I don't condone glorifying rape or violence against women.

I don't know if your post is against the rules but I'm notifying the moderators.

Given that it is pretty clear daedalus is being sarcastic, I don't see that he is promoting rape as an appropriate behavior. One might say the post is rather pointless and not an ideal example of civil debating, but I am unclear how it is breaking the rules. He is mocking a hypothetical person who would be performing a human sacrifice on the behalf of another person, with daedalus himself taking on the role of the other person.

[catholic crusader]

Moderator Comment

Would you accept a human sacrifice done on your behalf?

Or would you reject the human sacrifice on moral grounds and face the repercussions of your actions yourself?

First I would laugh at the guy.

Then, if I saw he was delusional and serious, I'd say "sure! take 'em all... first let me rape this wench first....ok, now I'm done - save me.:

Then, I would laugh and cry at the poor soul who was completely delusional, but I made him happy at the end his life.

I don't condone glorifying rape or violence against women.

I don't know if your post is against the rules but I'm notifying the moderators.

Given that it is pretty clear daedalus is being sarcastic, I don't see that he is promoting rape as an appropriate behavior. One might say the post is rather pointless and not an ideal example of civil debating, but I am unclear how it is breaking the rules. He is mocking a hypothetical person who would be performing a human sacrifice on the behalf of another person, with daedalus himself taking on the role of the other person.

Okay thanks for your response.

I don't know if your post is against the rules but I'm notifying the moderators.

That's why I sought an outside opinion.

When the moderators feel the rules have been violated, a notice will frequently occur within the thread where the violation occurred, pointing out the violation and perhaps providing other moderator comments. Moderator warnings and comments are made publicly, within the thread, so that all members may see when and how the rules are being interpreted and enforced. However, note that any challenges or replies to moderator comments or warnings should be made via Private Message. This is so that threads do not get derailed into discussions about the rules.