12 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieObviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened. But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them. Why can't you?
I try to refrain from decision based on an assumption, again its pure folly and not very wise, you see I am a very unassuming man, chess has taught me that assumptions are very dangerous and not always the wise course to take, its much better to remain flexible and objective until you know the facts, don't you agree?
Originally posted by FMFagain i am failing to see where you have answered my question, How is it possible FMF to make a decision on the basis of NO facts? You have not said. Are we simply to make moral decisions on assumptions, is that what you would have us do? to condemn people with scant knowledge of what they have done? Is that really what you're saying FMF
Would you be able to make a "moral decision" on violence if there WAS evidence?
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIs this somehow part of your justification for refusing to condemn violence against homosexuals?
I try to refrain from decision based on an assumption, again its pure folly and not very wise, you see I am a very unassuming man, chess has taught me that assumptions are very dangerous and not always the wise course to take, its much better to remain flexible and objective until you know the facts, don't you agree?
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, I am saying this:
again i am failing to see where you have answered my question, How is it possible FMF to make a decision on the basis of NO facts? You have not said. Are we simply to make moral decisions on assumptions, is that what you would have us do? to condemn people with scant knowledge of what they have done? Is that really what you're saying FMF
Obviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened.
But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them.
Why can't you?
Originally posted by FMFso you agree that basing a decision on little or scant knowledge is unwise and you must
Obviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened. But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them. Why can't you?
therefore also agree that your continued pestering me to answer a question on the basis of
having little or scant knowledge is therefore an unreasonable request on that basis, is it not?
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you able to condemn 'gay bashing' in cases where it is a fact that it happened?
so you garre that basing a decision on little or scant knowledge is unwise and you must
therefore also agree that your continued pestering me to answer a question on the basis of
having little or scant knowledge is therefore an unreasonable request on that basis, is it not?
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFyou have continually pestered someone to answer a question on the basis of having little or no facts, yet you cannot tell us how that person is supposed to make a reasonable or informed decision on the basis of having NO facts and you are therefore asking them to condemn someone of a pure assumption. Is that fair FMF, is it wise FMF?
No, I am saying this:
Obviously I would not condemn 'gay bashing' by Christians that had not happened or for which there was no evidence that it had happened.
But I can without hesitation condemn any threat of violence against gays and, of course, any actual violence against them.
Why can't you?
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf it turns out that what redbager said is factual, are you able to condemn such violence?
you have continually pestered someone to answer a question on the basis of having little or no facts, yet you cannot tell us how that person is supposed to make a reasonable or informed decision on the basis of having NO facts and you are therefore asking them to condemn someone of a pure assumption. Is that fair FMF, is it wise FMF?
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAre you able to condemn 'gay bashing' in cases where THERE IS EVIDENCE that it happened?
your request was unreasonable wasn't FMF, people cannot make decisions and condemn
others on the basis of NO EVIDENCE can they FM, its ok to admit it.
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by FMFAll things are possible FMF, even pestering people to condemn others on the basis of having little or NO evidence, I am sure it happens in places where corruption is rife every day.
Are you able to condemn 'gay bashing' in cases where THERE IS EVIDENCE that it happened?
12 Sep 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo, you misunderstand. I am asking you about cases where THERE IS EVIDENCE ~ not "NO evidence" ~ that the violence happened? Does your moral compass allow you to condemn it?
All things are possible FMF, even pestering people to condemn others on the basis of having little or NO evidence, I am sure it happens in places where corruption is rife every day.