I'm not asking what you'd RATHER, WD, I'm saying if you HAD to choose.
If a guy had a gun to your child's head and he said "I molest him and you get him back or I shoot him.". What's it to be?
Does anybody actually have the balls or guts (For the chicks.) to pick one? Pick the one you quite obviously would pick if you had to choose.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm not asking what you'd RATHER, WD, I'm saying if you HAD to choose.If a guy had a gun to your child's head and he said "I molest him and you get him back or I shoot him.". What's it to be?
Does anybody actually have the balls or guts (For the chicks.) to pick one? Pick the one you quite obviously would pick if you had to choose.
-AC
i already pointed out that this scenario is rooted in fallacy and misplaces fault. bad example
Yes, and the implication being if you had to choose, which would you rather happen? Not "Would you rather the situation happen or not?", but "If it HAD to, what outcome would you RATHER have, if you couldn't choose neither.".
Thanks for the cookie, now answer the question or get out of the line. I'm trying to get an answer, if you can't provide it, then don't get involved.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes, and the implication being if you had to choose, which would you rather happen?Thanks for the cookie, now answer the question or get out of the line.
-AC
But how can I choose something which I don't even know it could happen.
Practically you're asking me to choose a prediction of an event it may or may not happen. It's simply illogical.
AC grab some more cookies.
Stop dodging the point just to have something to say, WD.
Never heard of the word "Hypothetical"? Grab a dictionary and I'll grab those cookies.
Answer the question or don't involve yourself, it's a simple request.
If the scenario did happen, and you had to choose one or the other (Outcomes), which would it be?
-AC
ac, the problem with your scenario is it implies that its right to meet the demands and pleasure of a psycho as well as trust their word.
that is why i honestly told you that i would pick neither. i would plea for mercy and attempt to appeal to whatever shred of humanity might exist within them, but i would not choose. absolutely not.
your logic was that it would then be my fault, which is false beyond reason. it would be the killer/rapist's fault entirely. thats the reality of it and why i think its better to explain your core point (completely valid imo) in a way which doesnt discredit itself through fallacy.
my solution is, again:
Originally posted by Schecter
well of course niether. however what seems like a more likely scenario to you?1-child raped and parents thinking "well thank god he's still alive"
2-child murdered and parents thinking "well thank god he wasnt raped"
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Stop dodging the point just to have something to say, WD.Never heard of the word "Hypothetical"? Grab a dictionary and I'll grab those cookies.
Answer the question or don't involve yourself, it's a simple request.
If the scenario did happen, and you had to choose one or the other (Outcomes), which would it be?
-AC
Don't feel I'm trying to give you a hard time AC.
But honestly...even "Hypothetical" speaking...why would any reasonable parent would choose two tragic events for their child?
Tell you what...take all the cookies and leave the coffee for me.
Originally posted by Schecter
ac, the problem with your scenario is it implies that its right to meet the demands and pleasure of a psycho as well as trust their word.that is why i honestly told you that i would pick neither. i would plea for mercy and attempt to appeal to whatever shred of humanity might exist within them, but i would not choose. absolutely not.
your logic was that it would then be my fault, which is false beyond reason. it would be the killer/rapist's fault entirely. thats the reality of it and why i think its better to explain your core point (completely valid imo) in a way which doesnt discredit itself through fallacy.
It doesn't imply anything, because that's not what I'm intending to suggest, you're getting that out of it. That's the big difference.
If you could not choose, and the guy killed your child, and you could live with the fact that you could have stopped it but didn't, then that is entirely up to you.
However, our basic points and questions remain the same, as can be seen in your "solution". One is clearly more logical, one isn't. One SHOULD be the outlook, the other shouldn't.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Don't feel I'm trying to give you a hard time AC.But honestly...even "Hypothetical" speaking...why would any reasonable parent would choose two tragic events for their child?
Because I do not see how any self-respecting parent could live with knowing "Oh he shot my kid, and by choosing I could have stopped that, but I didn't.". If I'm wrong, and you could live with that, as I said to PVS, then go for it, but I think it's mental.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't imply anything, because that's not what I'm intending to suggest, you're getting that out of it. That's the big difference.If you could not choose, and the guy killed your child, and you could live with the fact that you could have stopped it but didn't, then that is entirely up to you.
However, our basic points and questions remain the same, as can be seen in your "solution". One is clearly more logical, one isn't. One SHOULD be the outlook, the other shouldn't.
-AC
christ, just ask it this way
Is it better for someone to suffer life or die?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It doesn't imply anything, because that's not what I'm intending to suggest, you're getting that out of it. That's the big difference.
ac, it DOES imply just what i said it implies simply by the following:
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If you could not choose, and the guy killed your child, and you could live with the fact that you could have stopped it but didn't, then that is entirely up to you.
that, ac, is exactly what i addressed and it is exactly rooted in fallacy as i clearly dissected.
Originally posted by Schecter
ac, the problem with your scenario is it implies that its right to meet the demands and pleasure of a psycho as well as trust their word.
its just wrong.
Fact is, you COULD have quite literally prevented th child's death, correct? Nowhere did I suggest it's RIGHT to adhere to demands, but in this case, doing something a bit shitty results in your child being safe, alive, and in my opinion, is the logical decision.
Originally posted by inimalist
christ, just ask it this wayIs it better for someone to suffer life or die?
I'm not about asking simple questions in ways people like, just cos they dislike how I ask it.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Fact is, you COULD have quite literally prevented th child's death, correct?
incorrect. absolutely false. someone who would set up this scenario obviously would find joy in YOUR turmoil. therefor to not give an answer could very likely delay his plan, buying you time. of course this is just speculation as well. thats why you cannot tie a simple concept as "murder>rape" to such a complex scenario and make it out to be simple cut and dry. no way dude
Cart before horse, Schecter.
It's logical to want your child alive, not dead. In this hypothetical case, if we know one will result in living and one won't, it's logical to choose life.
In this case, it would be logical to meet the demands, the benefits, if guaranteed, far outweigh the negatives. That's what the hypothetical situation is, it's not a matter of trusting their word, it's a matter of, in this situation, knowing their word is good.
That's why it's hypothetical.
Originally posted by Schecter
incorrect. absolutely false. someone who would set up this scenario obviously would find joy in YOUR turmoil. therefor to not give an answer could very likely delay his plan, buying you time. of course this is just speculation as well. thats why you cannot tie a simple concept as "murder>rape" to such a complex scenario and make it out to be simple cut and dry. no way dude
You are filling a simple, hypothetical situation with "What If?", though. It's an extreme, yet accurate way of saying: Life or death for your child?
You saying "But the kidnapper could do this, or might do this." it's not needed, that's not part of my scenario. I'm not trying to accurately depict a hostage situation, I'm using a hostage situation to apply a simple question.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I'm using a hostage situation to apply a simple question.-AC
and its not the correct route, ac. im not arguing the point, im arguing your vehicle to bring that point across. its entirely flawed. the sophia's choice scenario is so deeply rooted in fallacy and proves nothing.
a simple "would you be more traumitised to learn that your child was murdered or raped?" is simple and directly hilights the point with no complexity. your scenario is factually complex and its counterproductive in bringing the point across.
keep the point.
ditch the scenario