Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Reread my post.

Pell made the following argument to the young boy:
[quote]I said to this kid - I said simply "Hitler. You think Hitler might be in hell? Started the Second World War, caused the death of 50 million or would you prefer a system where Hitler got away with it for free?

The premise for the argument for the existence of h ur patterns of thought are positively juvenile whether or not you want to admit it.

Clearly I am speaking of the "argument to the young boy". Pell is arguing for the existence of hell WITH THE YOUNG BOY. In that argument WITH THE YOUNG BOY the premise of the argument FOR THE EXISTENCE OF HELL is that it is a place for the Hitler's of the world to go. In that argument WITH THE YOUNG BOY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF HELL, hell is required so that Hitler does not "[get] away with it for free". Purgatory was NOT mentioned in Pell's argument WITH THE YOUNG BOY.

He never says that. He asks, 'Do you think Hitler might be in Hell?' I searched very hard but I never found the words 'Hell is the only punishment Hitler deserves'. Nor would I expect the boy to have inferred that because in the context of his preparation for Confirmation, I am sure he would have received instruction on the topic of purgatory as well.

Anyway, why restrict yourself to discussion purely of the conversation with the boy? This presumably is not the whole conversation, which would also have covered Purgatory, nor can you expect the Cardinal to recall all the details of the conversation and explain the totality of Catholic doctrine on the afterlife within a polemical live television debate.

Do you at least acknowledge that there is an interpretation of Pell's words which is consistent? It seems to me that you just want to nitpick on the Cardinal's expression.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Clearly I am speaking of the "argument to the young boy". Pell is arguing for the existence of hell WITH THE YOUNG BOY. In that argument WITH THE YOUNG BOY the premise of the argument FOR THE EXISTENCE OF HELL is that it is a place for the Hitler's of the world to go. In that argument WITH THE YOUNG BOY FOR THE EXISTENCE OF HELL, hell is required so that nsistent? It seems to me that you just want to nitpick on the Cardinal's expression.

[/b]Seems I shouldn't have to keep pointing out the obvious, but with every discussion I have with you that I can recall, I have had to do so repeatedly. It's like trying to have a discussion with a little kid who is so determined to be right that he tosses out any argument no matter how flawed or even ridiculous. Your patterns of thought are positively juvenile whether or not you want to admit it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Seems I shouldn't have to keep pointing out the obvious, but with every discussion I have with you that I can recall, I have had to do so repeatedly. It's like trying to have a discussion with a little kid who is so determined to be right that he tosses out any argument no matter how flawed or even ridiculous. Your patterns of thought are positively juvenile whether or not you want to admit it.[/b]

I don't know what's so juvenile. I am willing to debate the subject without resorting to personal taunts. The fact is you are clearly attributing to the Cardinal claims he never made and, in the context of the debate, he did not wish to make. But even if he did express himself unclearly, who cares? Unclear expression is not necessarily a sign of irrational thought.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I don't know what's so juvenile. I am willing to debate the subject without resorting to personal taunts. The fact is you are clearly attributing to the Cardinal claims he never made and, in the context of the debate, he did not wish to make. But even if he did express himself unclearly, who cares? Unclear expression is not necessarily a sign of irrational thought.

I don't know what's so juvenile.

My point exactly.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I don't know what's so juvenile.

My point exactly.[/b]

Ok. Cool. Thank you.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think that one cannot really make any claims about whether the punishment fits the crime before one determines what judicial value the punishment serves.
I personally do not see any judicial value whatsoever in punishment after death unless there is an attempt to correct a persons behaviour in preparation for heaven. But this also assumes that any such ...[text shortened]... d that a certain behaviour in heaven is desired. All of which we know practically nothing about.

Punishment does not always have to be about correcting behavior.
Correcting behavior assumes another chance will be given to do right, if that was
taken away than behavior correction becomes meaningless.

If rewards and punishment are either continuation of life or not, and one has
been found to be unworthy of going forward the punishment will last a long time.
Kelly

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok. Cool. Thank you.

You're welcome. It's the same thing I'd tell a teen exhibiting similar patterns of thought. With the teen, chances are that they will likely realize it in a relatively short amount of time and make the necessary adjustments. Unfortunately, in your case it seems you are too prideful to do so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You're welcome. It's the same thing I'd tell a teen exhibiting similar patterns of thought. With the teen, chances are that they will likely realize it in a relatively short amount of time and make the necessary adjustments. Unfortunately, in your case it seems you are too prideful to do so.

Ok. I appreciate the feedback. Hopefully with time I shall improve my character and be exactly the kind of forum-poster you deem mature and adult.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Ok. I appreciate the feedback. Hopefully with time I shall improve my character and be exactly the kind of forum-poster you deem mature and adult.

Actually this goes way beyond what kind of forum poster you are. That said, it does have everything to do with maturity. Don't allow pride to keep you from attaining it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually this goes way beyond what kind of forum poster you are. That said, it does have everything to do with maturity. Don't allow pride to keep you from attaining it.

LOL, I had written a lengthy psychological analysis of your constant smearing of other posters who disagree with you, but I accidentally closed the tab and it was lost. On reflection, it's probably for the best.

You take yourself so seriously. Relax. As hard as it might be to believe, people can make reasonable cases for disagreeing with you without being prideful, willfully obtuse, dishonest, or lacking the reading comprehension to grasp your repeatedly self-quoted statements.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
LOL, I had written a lengthy psychological analysis of your constant smearing of other posters who disagree with you, but I accidentally closed the tab and it was lost. On reflection, it's probably for the best.

You take yourself so seriously. Relax. As hard as it might be to believe, people can make reasonable cases for disagreeing with you without b ...[text shortened]... ishonest, or lacking the reading comprehension to grasp your repeatedly self-quoted statements.

lol. Do you honestly believe that there aren't posters on this forum who are "prideful, willfully obtuse, dishonest, [and/or] lacking reading comprehension"?

With those who are, comes a point where there's nothing to do but point it out.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
lol. Do you honestly believe that there aren't posters on this forum who are "prideful, willfully obtuse, dishonest, [and/or] lacking reading comprehension"?

With those who are, comes a point where there's nothing to do but point it out.

Of course not. I just get suspicious when so many of your debate opponents get put in this box.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Of course not. I just get suspicious when so many of your debate opponents get put in this box.

Actually there isn't just one "box". Not sure why you'd think of it that way. Different circumstances, different "box".

And if you'd paid attention you'd realize that I've had any number of discussions with various posters over the years where we've just agreed to disagree.

Of course I should watch myself around you. Rumor has it that you're a "12 degree black belt or something".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually there isn't one "box". Not sure why you'd think of it that way. Different circumstances, different "box".

And if you'd paid attention you'd realize that I've had any number of discussions with various posters over the years where we've just agreed to disagree.

Of course I should watch myself around you. Rumor has it that you're a "12 degree black belt or something".

Compartments are cleverly merged into one big box via the Guilt by Association fallacy. You don't just point out the personal character flaws of your opponent, you go on with "You're acting like persons A, B and C" or "Person X has nothing on you" [as you did in our last debate, and as I have seen you do in many others]. Your opponents become one large out-group of People of Questionable Character, instead of a group of people with varied beliefs and different reasons for debating them.

I don't recall a time that you ended a debate by agreeing to disagree. Probably you could produce an example. Nevertheless, the pattern would remain.

The daniel58 quote you refer to was not addressed to me. I just found it funny. [I suppose I could accuse you of not paying attention, but I will adopt the eminently more reasonable position of not expecting you to remember every single discussion that you've read...]

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Compartments are cleverly merged into one big box via the Guilt by Association fallacy. You don't just point out the personal character flaws of your opponent, you go on with "You're acting like persons A, B and C" or "Person X has nothing on you" [as you did in our last debate, and as I have seen you do in many others]. Your opponents become one large o e position of not expecting you to remember every single discussion that you've read...]

Actually when I'd read your profile a while ago, I found the D58 quote funny too. That's why I put it out there. I'd forgotten about that kid. "You take yourself so seriously".

Your "Guilt by Association fallacy" observation doesn't seem to make much sense. It's about a specific shared flaw, so it's more like "Association by Guilt". Like I said, "Different circumstances, different 'box'".