Society

Originally posted by RJHinds
No, I am not implying that. I was just agreeing with the below statements for how our present world works:

Freedom has a price, and the ability to do bad things is part of that price.

Just as you can't have free speech and not have anyone ever say something you disagree with.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally posted by FMF
This 'If you were God what would you do?' thing is a ridiculous, juvenile, hypothetical question that sheds no light on the human condition as it actually is in the real world. You are trying to deflect from the fact, demonstrated earlier on this thread, that you quite clearly do not know the history of crime and violence or the relative levels of these problems ...[text shortened]... I see this trite play-God water cooler chit chat debating tactic as an attempted distraction.

I didn't imply the "If I were God" issue at all. So you are showing you don't understand the issue I'm getting at as it seems you never do. You can't answer a simple question without this crazy analizing process that you feel you have to do which makes you not see the obvious. So as usual I'm waisting my time conversing with you.

Originally posted by galveston75
I didn't imply the "If I were God" issue at all.

You asked "If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with, would you go for that?" This is clearly an inane "If you were God" question.

You suggest to me a "a way [...] that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with" and I will tell you [ a ] if I think it would work and [ b ] if I'd support it. Remember, your suggestion mustn't imply an "If I were God" scenario.

Originally posted by galveston75
I didn't imply the "If I were God" issue at all. So you are showing you don't understand the issue I'm getting at as it seems you never do. You can't answer a simple question without this crazy analizing process that you feel you have to do which makes you not see the obvious. So as usual I'm waisting my time conversing with you.

if you dont argue with him hell accuse you of habitually running away every time you
dont feel like debating!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you dont argue with him hell accuse you of habitually running away every time you
dont feel like debating!

But surely you agree that the whole premise of galveston75's question is a complete mess? I have already told him what I advocate for the building of a better society. What is the purpose of his 'if you could do anything' question? Why doesn't he just propose something and see what people think of his idea?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
if you dont argue with him hell accuse you of habitually running away every time you
dont feel like debating!

Lol. I'm sure they guy is smart and can probably blow me out of the water on many levels and on many subjects. But he seems to have a hard time with just plain simply comments on simple questions.

Originally posted by FMF
But surely you agree that the whole premise of galveston75's question is a complete mess? I have already told him what I advocate for the building of a better society. What is the purpose of his 'if you could do anything' question? Why doesn't he just propose something and see what people think of his idea?

I did propose a simple question that a simple yes or no would have done, but now it's you that turned it into a "mess"!!!

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. I'm sure they guy is smart and can probably blow me out of the water on many levels and on many subjects. But he seems to have a hard time with just plain simply comments on simple questions.

"If there was a way, not matter what it is, that all crime on all levels against humanity could be done away with" - you said "stopped by any means" a little later in your question - "would you go for that?"

What "way" is it you are referring to? What are you referring to when you say "stopped by any means"? Legal means? Supernatural means? Some sort of science fiction means?

Why don't you just come out and say what you have in mind and then I can tell you if I "would you go for that"? I have answered your question, and yet - judging by how you have simply ignored it - you seem to think my answer needs to be something you agree with or else it isn't an answer.

Originally posted by galveston75
I did propose a simple question that a simple yes or no would have done, but now it's you that turned it into a "mess"!!!

As I said in my answer - which you ignored - I advocate constant striving for improvements in education, health, justice and environmental protection. These are the cornerstones of human development and underpin rule of law and a healthy society.

Originally posted by galveston75
I did propose a simple question that a simple yes or no would have done, but now it's you that turned it into a "mess"!!!

nonsense.

As FMF has been saying and other including me have also pointed out, the method of
achieving the goal is important... In this instance vital... To determining if the idea is
one that should be supported.

For example, if achieving the goal required giving up personal autonomy or freedom of
speech then I would oppose it.

If you could magic away all crime and suffering with no downsides then I would probably
support it but I would still need to have some idea of what that society would look like
and what it would be like to live in it.

I do not however think it is even remotely possible that you could magic away all crime,
let alone do so with no downsides, hitches , catches or consequences.


Therefore HOW the goal is to be achieved is of vital import to whether it is to be supported.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Therefore HOW the goal is to be achieved is of vital import to whether it is to be supported.

galveston75 has said he thinks I have a lack of interest and that I don't care at all about the victims of crime.

He also seems to think that me not endorsing it being "stopped by any means", without knowing what those "any means" are, indicates that I am "blind to the world around" me or - and this was curious, to say the least - that I "just hate anything to do about God and that he could help". Strangely enough, a few posts later, he asserted that he "didn't imply the 'If I were God' issue at all."

Originally posted by FMF
galveston75 has said he thinks I have a lack of interest and that I don't care at all about the victims of crime.

He also seems to think that me not endorsing it being "stopped by any means", without knowing what those "any means" are, indicates that I am "blind to the world around" me or - and this was curious, to say the least - that I [b]"just hate anythi ...[text shortened]... sts later, he asserted that he "didn't imply the 'If I were God' issue at all."[/b]

Yes, I have been following the exchange.


I think something that might bring it home could be this question. (to galveston75)



"Would you support a measure that stopped all crime and suffering that had as a direct consequence
the immediate and irreversible complete removal of all religious and other faith based beliefs turning
the entire population into atheists?"

Originally posted by galveston75
Lol. I'm sure they guy is smart and can probably blow me out of the water on many levels and on many subjects. But he seems to have a hard time with just plain simply comments on simple questions.

his whole modus operandi is to create or engineer some kind of conflicting detail, either
through a perceived inconsistency, for example when he attempts to draw a
comparison with your posts and mine on the basis of some subjective interpretation or
to attempt to make the debate personal with references to a persons character etc Its
harmless enough, but rather fruitless.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
his whole modus operandi is to create or engineer some kind of conflicting detail, either
through a perceived inconsistency, for example when he attempts to draw a
comparison with your posts and mine on the basis of some subjective interpretation or
to attempt to make the debate personal with references to a persons character etc Its
harmless enough, but rather fruitless.

Which reminds me, FMF has not attacked my character lately. I do miss it so.

I think it has to do with the last interaction I had with him. I basically said, "Thank you sir may I have another." Once he realized I was enjoying it he stopped. :'(

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
his whole modus operandi is to create or engineer some kind of conflicting detail, either
through a perceived inconsistency, for example when he attempts to draw a
comparison with your posts and mine on the basis of some subjective interpretation or
to attempt to make the debate personal with references to a persons character etc Its
harmless enough, but rather fruitless.

Do you think galveston75 is right to suggest that I have a lack of interest and don't care at all about crime, based on our exchanges on this thread? What do you think galveston75 means by "any means" when he asks me about crime being "stopped by any means"? I reckon his whole premise is basically incoherent, and yet you reckon the problem is with my "subjective interpretation" of what he means?