Spirituality
11 Nov 06
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI think it is become extremely important that you actually answer the question at hand or run the risk of people thinking you have completely lost your mind, which would be a shame since in most respects you seem to have a very gifted one.
Most people in this discussion appear to be equivocating on the meaning of the word "child":
1. "Child" in relationship to "parent"; i.e. "child" as synonymous to "son/daughter". This is the sense I've been using it in (and other posters at times). I should've been quite explicit that this can and does include adults.
2. "Child" in comparison to ...[text shortened]... synonymous to "minor". This appears to be the sense most people have taken.
I will phrase the question as best I can...
Let's go ahead and assume the "child" is an adult; can you fathom a situation where the disrespect towards said child's parents would warrent the death penalty, via stoning or otherwise? Should the death penalty be used against a person who did not commit murder or engage in a plot that resulted in murder?
Assuming the "child" is actually a child in the respect that he or she has not reached legal adult status; are there any circumstances you can think of where the death penalty should be used against said child?
TheSkipper
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Welcome to Equivocation 101, with ample doses of Intermediate Goal Post Moving thrown in.
EDIT: No one but LH is equivocating on the meaning of the word "child", a word he first used and which is commonly used to refer to non-adults. And the distinction he makes is totally irrelevant to the proportionality of putting to death a "child", of any age, for "disrespecting a parent".
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperSo we are clear, your comment in this thread that most concerns me is the following:
I think it is become extremely important that you actually answer the question at hand or run the risk of people thinking you have completely lost your mind, which would be a shame since in most respects you seem to have a very gifted one.
I will phrase the question as best I can...
Let's go ahead and assume the "child" is an adult; can you fathom a you can think of where the death penalty should be used against said child?
TheSkipper
{LH}
Just because your culture seems to tolerate kids treating their parents like dirt and parents killing off their kids at a whim doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy it.
{end LH}
At the time you made this comment we had just began discussing whether or not an adulterer should be stoned and you seemed to suggest that there were certain circumstances under which an adulterer could indeed be stoned. Then someone asked, quite logically since obeying ones parents is from the same set of biblical laws, if a child (I assume in the under age sense) should be stoned for disrespecting his or her parents. Your response (above) is baffling and I would be interested to hear your explanation.
TheSkipper
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerDuh. Proportionality is the proposition that the severity of the punishment must be appropriate to the severity of the offense. In this context, the smashing of someone's skull by thrown projectiles seems to be a bit harsh for the "crime" of not showing proper "respect" to one's parents. Or for the "crime" of having sex with someone besides your spouse when you are married.
What do you mean by "minimal criterion of proportionality"? What do you mean by it in this context?
Jesus may have believed that adultery was a sin, but its pretty clear that he rejected stoning has a punishment for it.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by TheSkipperIt seems clear to me: Western culture is deficient in providing for a healthy parent-child relationship because we fail to execute children who disrespect their parents.
So we are clear, your comment in this thread that most concerns me is the following:
{LH}
Just because your culture seems to tolerate kids treating their parents like dirt and parents killing off their kids at a whim doesn't mean the rest of us have to buy it.
{end LH}
At the time you made this comment we had just began discussing whether or not a ...[text shortened]... response (above) is baffling and I would be interested to hear your explanation.
TheSkipper
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by TheSkipperI think it is become extremely important that you actually answer the question at hand
I think it is become extremely important that you actually answer the question at hand or run the risk of people thinking you have completely lost your mind, which would be a shame since in most respects you seem to have a very gifted one.
I will phrase the question as best I can...
Let's go ahead and assume the "child" is an adult; can you fathom a you can think of where the death penalty should be used against said child?
TheSkipper
I thought we were having this discussion precisely because I was answering the questions at hand. When the question is ambiguous, I try my best to clarify as much of it as I can before I answer it.
or run the risk of people thinking you have completely lost your mind
Which about half the posters on this forum think anyway simply by virtue of my being a theist.
Let's go ahead and assume the "child" is an adult; can you fathom a situation where the disrespect towards said child's parents would warrent the death penalty, via stoning or otherwise?
What do you mean by "warrant the death penalty"? Do you mean something that is objectively so grevious a wrong that death would be a just penalty for it or something that we should have laws decreeing the death penalty for? I see a clear distinction between the two -- most people reading my posts in this thread don't and that appears to be at the heart of what's being posted about.
Let me explain by way of analogy. Let's suppose that a country has a law prescribing the death penalty for murder. Now let's say there's a murderer in a particular neighbourhood. Death is the legal punishment for this murderer's crimes -- does that mean the townspeople can just band up and, say, hang him? Maybe they form a town committee and have a trial first. Would you disagree that it is still vigilanteism and not in accordance with the law? What is the difference between this situation and an authorised judge finding the man guilty and sentencing him to death at the hands of an authorised executioner?
If you agree that such a distinction exists (especially to a theist -- who does believe in a "higher Judge" ), then I'll answer your questions.
17 Nov 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYou really need to learn some new words.
Welcome to Equivocation 101, with ample doses of Intermediate Goal Post Moving thrown in.
EDIT: No one but LH is equivocating on the meaning of the word "child", a word he first used and which is commonly used to refer to non-adults. And the distinction he makes is totally irrelevant to the proportionality of putting to death a "child", of any age, for "disrespecting a parent".
If people are not equivocating on the meaning of 'child', why don't they simply use 'son/daughter' (or maybe 'progeny'😉 to mean the first sense and 'minor' to mean the second?
Ah, but where's the shock value in that? "LH thinks disobedient schoolchildren should be put to death by Western society" simply is too irresistable, isn't it?
17 Nov 06
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerSince you were apparently using the term child in a non-usual manner, that's your fault. Parents don't generally refer to their adult offspring as their "child".
You really need to learn some new words.
If people are not equivocating on the meaning of 'child', why don't they simply use 'son/daughter' (or maybe 'progeny'😉 to mean the first sense and 'minor' to mean the second?
Ah, but where's the shock value in that? "LH thinks disobedient schoolchildren should be put to death by Western society" simply is too irresistable, isn't it?
17 Nov 06
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerLH: Do you mean something that is objectively so grevious a wrong that death would be a just penalty for it
[b]I think it is become extremely important that you actually answer the question at hand
I thought we were having this discussion precisely because I was answering the questions at hand. When the question is ambiguous, I try my best to clarify as much of it as I can before I answer it.
[b/]or run the risk of people thinking you have complet - who does believe in a "higher Judge" ), then I'll answer your questions.[/b]
Most people don't agree that "disrespecting one's parents" or adultery is "such a grevious wrong that death would be a just penalty for it". Period. You are rather plainly thick or disingenous to declare that people are merely confused.