erock68la

This depends on the topic. If the terms used are clear and the arguments used are verifiable then the person can still be wrong. He should be capable of taking a step back and objectively going over his argument and possibly admit he was wrong. That doesn’t require a second person.

If it is a matter of moral judgement…then depending on the…[Read more]

That would be something incredible. Imagine suddenly losing free will (or per some…the illusion of free will). If we had memory of free will…then I suppose our lives would become similar to passively watching some kind of film while still experience the emotions and sensations. Creepy thought.

SteveInCO wrote:@Davis

I am much more sympathetic to outing a politician than a preacher, because only the politician can be an agent of force (as you touched on). But it had better be a politician that really goes against the group he’s fighting (gays, atheists, whatever). Occasional pandering speeches is one thing, I’ve never known a pol…

[Read more]

Agreed, cased closed, unless perhaps God Himself has a Free Will on/off switch that still works. (Please don’t elaborate on the implied paradoxes… I’ve said too much already.)

I think we all think we think we all want Free Will, without the red buttons.

I used to have a wonderful cartoon of Arnie as Terminator, running from the crosses with Jesus slung over his shoulder and the caption, “We’re not putting up with your shit for the next 2,000 years”.

So the consensus is that pushing the big red atheist button would be a bad idea. I’ve decided not to build my time machine…go to the future…steal brain control technology…go back into the past…get Einstein and Turing to work out the details and create a mock up…and then come back into our relative time frame…and push the big red…[Read more]

@Davis

I am much more sympathetic to outing a politician than a preacher, because only the politician can be an agent of force (as you touched on). But it had better be a politician that really goes against the group he’s fighting (gays, atheists, whatever). Occasional pandering speeches is one thing, I’ve never known a politician who didn’t…[Read more]

@Strega

Strega wrote:@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

Couldn’t agree more.

@Davis. I think if we first agree that outing someone is an act of aggression, then justifying circumstances appropriate for an act of aggression becomes more straightforward on a case by case basis.

SteveInCO wrote:

Davis wrote:
And so…outing someone who works against your interests within a group is okay…but outing someone outside of your group who works against your interests is not okay. I can see how this might be fair…but perhaps you can explain why?

To be clear, I was thinking of the case where someone is pretending to be in Group…

[Read more]

Indeed. I was thinking about this a fair bit this weekend. The only reasonable argument (though not necessarily a good one) for outing someone like this is if the person is in the role of a leader or representative (or internally within an advocacy group) … who is working to undermine the rights of others, not as an ad hominem but as an attempt…[Read more]