There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me

Factfinder

@Joeseph

Excellent rebuttal. Just sayin ran from this post https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/180303/#Comment_180303 because he has no answer in his indoctrination for it.

Strip away their excuses for "bad" translations and cherry picking verses with no regard to context and there's nothing left but their blind faith which they can't defend. One would think the god of the bible could truly deliver the 'infallible' word of god without relying on human hands to scribe it into so many erroneous transliterations and translations?

MayCaesar

Factfinder said:

@cheetahgod360

I've asked you to clarify your position. Let me articulate it for you then you can tell if I'm right. You used the term 'inherent' in your op as the key to claim at it's core, existence, creation, the universe has no right and wrong. It just continues. That's it in a nutshell? If so then sure, trying to argue that the universe has a moral code would be as impotent as trying to prove or disprove god. Why participate in a discussion defined in such narrow terms? Sure, strip all human concepts of right and wrong that's developed over the ages making our existence equal in all ways to a rock, then there's no alternative to agree the rock has no sense of right and wrong morality. In the most basic primitive sense there might be an element of truth alluded to by your question but in reality humans have evolved in such a way that rapes are wrong so what's the point of your debate?

I think people often use overly simplistic theories on the source of established practices in human society. For instance, when it comes to currency, many people (even economists) assume that currency is just something a bunch of people arbitrarily agreed to assign value to, and it spread from there, and that in reality currency has no intrinsic value. Aside from it being a major historical inaccuracy, it also does not make much sense heuristically: that something so foundational to all modern economies was a result of people randomly agreeing to use it is extremely implausible. There is a reason that countless human societies developed currencies independently from each other - yet the details of implementation were different.

Same here. One extreme school of thought suggests that morals are completely arbitrary: whatever the strongest group forces on everyone else goes. Another extreme school of thought suggests that morals are set in stone and are somehow objectively derived from the source, the source being "god", or "nature", or "laws of physics", or whatever. What seems to be the case in reality is that there are some biological drivers of morals, and some societal drivers of morals (which explains why different societies tend to gravitate towards similar moral rule sets) - but also personal and cultural opinions, environmental influences, et cetera. That murder is universally condemned is fairly natural - it is hard to imagine a society in which murder is not discouraged and which does not fall apart within days - but then we have more complicated cases such as slavery that for the majority of human history was widely accepted, while nowadays is universally condemned. It is not like human biology has changed significantly over the past 300 years. Philosophies have, however, as well as technology.

Similar to Maslow's pyramid, one could propose a hierarchy of morals, from the foundational ones that are absolutely necessary for existence of a society and survival of an individual, to the loose ones that are wide open to individual and cultural interpretation. Something like opposition to murder, rape and thievery is at the bottom of the pyramid, and without these a society will fall apart and an average individual will not get anywhere in life. At the top would be somewhat inconsequential things such as whether it is moral to not be vegetarian. The higher up the pyramid we go, the more diversity of opinions and behaviors is observed across human societies.

Of course, it does not mean that highly impractical moral systems cannot exist in societies for extended periods of time under special circumstances. Societies like Kims' North Korea or Mao's China existed and were highly stable - however, they had to be maintained with an iron fist. As soon as the China's strongman died, the system he built fell apart. These are not viable moral systems in perpetuity. It is conceivable for the US or the UK to exist for the next 500 years without major changes in their economical, social and political structures - but it is inconceivable for North Korea to exist this long.

Individuals can also make mistakes. Morals are subjective, but not arbitrary. There can be a lot of debate on whether drinking alcohol is moral or not - but living as if murder was moral will have very immediate debilitating consequences on anyone attempting it (unless they have managed to first secure a position of virtually uncontested power). I would argue that the ultimate purpose of morals is thriving of the individual, and it is every individual's job to figure out what makes him tick and to adjust his moral system accordingly. Not everyone's optimal system is going to be the same, but there will be a lot of convergence given the similarity of our biology.

There is, however, a meta-mistake that one can make that makes everything else irrelevant: let someone else assign a moral system to him. Religion, ideology, parents, peers, boss, lover... Giving up one's autonomy and search is the ultimate mistake one can make in life, and everyone who has done that has lost the game of life. This is the kind of people who, on their deathbed, suddenly have a painful realization that they have wasted their life trying to live up to others' expectations, instead of figuring out what they wanted to do.

Joeseph

@Factfinder

Thanks FF. Just sayin nearly always runs, your post on biblical rape proves he has nothing. What's truly hilarious is thaf Ricky and him use the bible to contradict the bible and never seem to realise how ridiculous this is.

That's a very good point you make, you'd think an all powerful god could somehow work on his communication skills a bit more.

It's funny Muslims claim the Quran cannot be challenged as its a perfect book without contradiction and when challenged resort to the very same reinterpretations and semantic nonsense.

MayCaesar

@Joeseph

He is just the kind of person who is deeply ingrained in his thinking and has trouble understanding any argument that does not align with his vision. It is common for religious people, although neither exclusive nor universal.

There was a cool exercise one high school teacher had us do. We would express our opinions on something and find a disagreement - and then we would switch the roles and argue the best case for the opponent's position. For instance, suppose I believe that women should have equal rights with men, while my opponent believes that they should not. We would switch the roles, I would make the best argument I can for why women should have fewer rights than men, and my opponent would argue for equality. It was extremely eye-opening: not only would we gain respect for our opponents' positions by finding good arguments in favor of them, but we would strengthen our own positions by finding flaws in them and correcting for them.

Doing so though takes guts, especially in the debate setting. It is much easier to simply assume that everyone who disagrees with you is smoking something, and semi-intentionally misunderstand their arguments.

Factfinder

@MayCaesar

There was a cool exercise one high school teacher had us do. We would express our opinions on something and find a disagreement - and then we would switch the roles and argue the best case for the opponent's position. For instance, suppose I believe that women should have equal rights with men, while my opponent believes that they should not. We would switch the roles, I would make the best argument I can for why women should have fewer rights than men, and my opponent would argue for equality. It was extremely eye-opening: not only would we gain respect for our opponents' positions by finding good arguments in favor of them, but we would strengthen our own positions by finding flaws in them and correcting for them.

I did that once on a debate sight some twenty years ago. Failed miserably as I was still a staunch Christian at the time and couldn't comprehend the reality that some people do not believe in god. Thought about trying to do that here, now but not sure how to structure it so that people seriously participate without quickly dissolving into insults of peoples beliefs. After about 3 or 4 attempts back then that's what the debate deteriorated to.

just_sayin

Factfinder said:

@Joeseph

Excellent rebuttal. Just sayin ran from this post https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/180303/#Comment_180303 because he has no answer in his indoctrination for it.

Strip away their excuses for "bad" translations and cherry picking verses with no regard to context and there's nothing left but their blind faith which they can't defend. One would think the god of the bible could truly deliver the 'infallible' word of god without relying on human hands to scribe it into so many erroneous transliterations and translations?

I pointed out what the passage actually says and why your claim was false. You deflected to 'well since we neither know the language, its hard to say who is right'. You know better than that. It is a simple thing to look up what the original word is and what it says. As a former deacon, you know that. The Bible does not endorse rape. That is a false claim.

MayCaesar

Well, it takes two to tango, right? In order to play devil's advocate successfully, your conversation partner has to be on board. Something that such discussions allow one to do is disentangle the rational component of their position from the emotional component. For instance, I believe that the collective's well-being should never trump the individual's well-being - but to what extent is this position driven by logic, and to what extent is it driven by my personal frustrations of being controlled by people in the past? Taking the opposite position - for the collective and against the individual - and honestly making the best argument I can think of for it allows me to better understand the split in my mind. But it is a pretty painful thing to do psychologically, and if my conversation partner is not willing to be somewhat uncomfortable in the conversation, then it will fall apart, as you noted.

I am truly privileged to have a couple of friends like this, with whom I can run any idea, no matter how outrageous, and explore it honestly. It requires a deep mutual trust and a pretty thick skin. I do not know what it is about the Internet, but trust and thick skin are pretty hard to come by here.

cheetahgod360

@MayCaesar

I understand how your feeling. Listen, it’s just that I used to debate with 10 people at once and I don’t want to be reading 70 college essays. It’s nothing personal. I believe you should be able to find me again in another debate.

Factfinder

@just_sayin

I pointed out what the passage actually says and why your claim was false. You deflected to 'well since we neither know the language, its hard to say who is right'. You know better than that. It is a simple thing to look up what the original word is and what it says. As a former deacon, you know that. The Bible does not endorse rape. That is a false claim.

You chose a translation that could be molded best into your narrative. Actually I dismantled your fraudulent attempt head on cause I don't have to misrepresent you or your book like you do me and others. This is what I really said...So cherry picking translations can not bring a satisfying conclusion about as neither one of us are qualified to make such determinations arbitrarily. The entire context must be considered and established.

No matter how far back you go, the start of the bible begins in Hebrew, an ancient language with no vowels. As time pasted cultures evolved, languages predominately spoken replaced other languages, Greek, Aramaic, Latin, English, modern American English just to name a few. Which makes incorporating transliterations necessary as some languages have no translative contemporary to translate to.

In other words it's impossible for direct translations of scripture to be traced to it's original equivalent wording as they don't exist in original form. That's why the King James version contains the culturist style of print it has which would be far different in every way imaginable then in say Moses time. That's why we have so many translations today, it's basically a work in progress. And that allows you to cherry pick. See, you lose on that point too.

So back to what I truly said again before you misquoted me, the entire context must be considered and established. Which I did by demonstrating the biblical view of rape seems primarily concerned about virgins but even when not, it's incumbent on the female to resist in a way deemed by the men in charge or it's not rape. Meaning cry out and be heard or the whole thing is on you, not your rapist. Furthermore I showed how the bible treats woman like cattle in so much as they had to prove their virginity or have the parents keep proof. As you know and others have pointed out, virgins also were considered spoils of war.

If the bible isn't endorsing rape as that case may be made since if it is determined a slam dunk the rapist is 100% at fault then they may kill him. It's still a lot more along the lines of the op than the theory of evolution; when it comes to just how much does the bible condemn it actually? In real terms in a bronze age society where women were systematically oppressed?

cheetahgod360

@Factfinder

“Why participate in a discussion?”

I’m bored of destroying people in power scaling debates.

Humans have not evolved in a way that discourages rape physically. If you were not taught in this society and you were raised a cavemen and saw a sexually appealing woman who did not want to have sex with you, you would not care. The point is to prove why rape is not inherently wrong. Why moral values blind people of seeing that everything is neutral. I could have said “stealing 10 dollars is not inherently wrong” but saying things like rape is much more attention attractive.

The point in my debate is to cure my boredom. But it’s not valid to use that as a reason to justify why I am wrong and how rape is bad in all.

Factfinder

cheetahgod360 said:

@Factfinder

“Why participate in a discussion?”

I’m bored of destroying people in power scaling debates.

Humans have not evolved in a way that discourages rape physically. If you were not taught in this society and you were raised a cavemen and saw a sexually appealing woman who did not want to have sex with you, you would not care. The point is to prove why rape is not inherently wrong. Why moral values blind people of seeing that everything is neutral. I could have said “stealing 10 dollars is not inherently wrong” but saying things like rape is much more attention attractive.

The point in my debate is to cure my boredom. But it’s not valid to use that as a reason to justify why I am wrong and how rape is bad in all.

Yes we have. Our brains are biological organs that have evolved thought processes and the fact we have laws against rape supports the reality we've evolved in a way where rape is bad. Just repeating your opinion isn't debating. 10 dollar analogy fails for the same reasons mentioned before with rape. Most of us have evolved from the caveman days which is why we do not behave that way. I know it hurts you, someone who wants to believe we should just aimlessly follow instinct. But we are not rocks and as a species we evolved through the passages of time to where we've developed a sense of morals. None of which would be occurring without evolutionary processes. Not goals. That is more religious.

One of the prominent ways of tracking the evolution of the human brain is through direct evidence in the form of fossils. The evolutionary history of the human brain shows primarily a gradually bigger brain relative to body size during the evolutionary path from early primates to hominids and finally to Homo sapiens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_brain#:~:text=One of the prominent ways,and finally to Homo sapiens.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@MayCaesar ; @Joeseph ; You can't understand because you're dead spiritually, ignorant cognitively, concerning Elohim's purposes...you've made yourself irrelevant in your unbelief and you're headed to death in Hell in nihilism and you're too narcissistic and arrogant to care and change...sorry...your shame to bear. You've made yourself irrelevant as an atheist, a servant of Satan...you and Factfinder and May and Bogan and Jack ... you're all as useless as the tits on a boar hog.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/3z/kzgc1j5unhkc.jpg

Factfinder

@RickeyHoltsclaw

You can't understand because you're dead spiritually, ignorant cognitively, concerning Elohim's purposes...you've made yourself irrelevant in your unbelief and you're headed to death in Hell in nihilism and you're too narcissistic and arrogant to care and change...sorry...your shame to bear. You've made yourself irrelevant as an atheist, a servant of Satan...you and Factfinder and May and Bogan and Jack ... you're all as useless as the tits on a boar hog.

You can't understand reality because your cognitively devoid of ability to think. Childhood fantasy myth books coupled with an urge to serve a masculine fairy elf god has made you useless as a human being. But upon your passing you'd make good pig slop.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

** you're all as useless as the tits on a boar hog.**

Why do you keep bringing your wife into this?

I see you and Just Sayin are still to terrified to debate biblical slavery

Joeseph

@cheetahgod360

I doubt you destroy anyone in debate to be honest as you just post up ill.nformed opinions and run when challenged.

You posted up utter nonsense regards Evolution and when I challenged you your best " defence" was ...." I never debate more than two people "

You're living in a cave if you think humans have not evolved.

The actual point you're trying to make is not new it's correct term is Emotivism as in to say something is wrong is not to make a claim at all ,rather it is to express disapproval of it , to say something is right is to express approval of it.
We create moral value by feeling as we do.
This leaves one in a position where one can never make a moral mistake as all positions are valid under Emotivism.

Joeseph

@cheetahgod360

Translation : Run when cornered

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

Yes indeed indoctrination is indeed a very powerful tool and works very effectively if one is part of the process from infancy.

That teacher sounds like a lot of fun and the exercise would throw up some excellent food for thought.

I've argued opposite sides twice in the past once as a theist where I admitted my belief in God was based purely on faith and nothing else , this really upset several Atheists who insisted I'd no justification for feeling this way , it was a lot of fun.

I've also argued for old style communism just for fun after a few beers, now that really got people boiling mad

On a side note I learned how irrational most people are when I posed on several sites one of the brilliant questions by David Hume......Why expect the sun to rise tomorrow?

Our expectation is wholly irrational.

This extraordinary argument of Humes cased utter mayhem , marvellous fun was had by me.

cheetahgod360

@Factfinder

Could you look at my replies again. We have not evolved to dislike rape.

cheetahgod360

@factfinder

I repeated my opinion because you repeated your argument.

Humans have not evolved to dislike rape. It’s societal implants that made us dislike rape. Developed things in evolution may not always contribute towards the end goal of creating a superior species. Some evolved features are defects. Let me tell you, evolution only occurs when an individual with a certain mutation breeds with others. Most of the time they evolved superior traits that helped them survive. Does not mean that every so often a goat that has a feature that kills itself before half its original lifespan will reproduce and spread that trait (horns do a 180 and jab into brain).

I’ll repeat it again. Humans have not evolved to dislike rape, it’s societal standards.

cheetahgod360

@Joeseph
Try playing devils advocate on an offensive topic, let’s see how you handle the entire crowd coming at you at once.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; In your arrogance and ignorance and obfuscation due your spiritual ignorance, my wife has nothing to do with this conversation, only your idio-cy and lack of awareness due your atheism. You are a slave to your sin and the Devil...but you're absent wisdom and discernment; therefore, you glory in your impending death in Hell subsequent Judgment; again, as useless as the tits on a boar hog. Your boyfriend is embarrassed.

Joeseph

@cheetahgod360

Try playing devils advocate on an offensive topic, let’s see how you handle the entire crowd coming at you at once.

I have done numerous times , is that your best effort at defending your position? You know it is a debate site if you're not up to it run along.

The only person saying it's offensive is you after saying you don't care regards rape , shot yourself in the foot there .

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

We have previously established your wife is a rampant wanton hog in need of constant c-ck , it's amusing your obsession with homosexuality and the way you constantly accuse others of your secret vices........you really are a gullible gay, corrupt cop who no doubt took backhanders and turned a blind eye once you lined your pockets ....Jesus would hate you..

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; Again, you're too ignorant to remain on subject but must obfuscate to rationalize your homosexuality and aberrant lust for another man's rectum.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Again, you're too ignorant to remain on subject but must obfuscate to rationalize your homosexuality and aberrant lust for another man's rectum.

What part of Christianity do you follow as all you do is lie , bear false witness and wish ill of everyone, yo do know Jesus would detest you.......

There you go again accusing me of your panting lust for man on man action , no wonder your wife Miss piggy gets her pork soldier elsewhere .......the dirty dog.....

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; You don't know true Christianity...we're not door mats for atheistic demons like yourself...we're capable and ready to fight and contend with your idio-cy....you're a foolish, naive, useless, atheist...you've chosen this path...walk in it in shame...you've earned it. Jesus suffered and died for you, you mock Him with your arrogance and atheism...you reap and sow...deservedly.

Image: https://debateisland.com/uploads/editor/rt/ty0j4s3gtro7.jpg

Factfinder

@cheetahgod360

Um, you're not debating so, what @Joeseph said.

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

; You don't know true Christianity...we're not door mats for atheistic demons like yourself..

No one is asking you to be a door mat I'm asking why you claim to be a christian when all you do is bear false witness , lie and hate on others.

.we're capable and ready to fight and contend with your idio-cy....you're a foolish, naive, useless, atheist

The only Id-ot here is you a vicious bitter bigot and racist who hasn't a decent bond in his corrupt body.

...you've chosen this path...walk in it in shame...you've earned it.

What path have I chosen exactly?

Jesus suffered and died for you,

Who asked him? Also he died for a weekend and apparently resurrected for eternal life , hows that suffering?

you mock Him with your arrogance and atheism...you reap and sow...deservedly.

I've reaped very well so far , you on the other spent you wasteful life engaged in corruption in a corrupt racist police force, you punk.

MayCaesar

Joeseph said:

@MayCaesar

Yes indeed indoctrination is indeed a very powerful tool and works very effectively if one is part of the process from infancy.

That teacher sounds like a lot of fun and the exercise would throw up some excellent food for thought.

I've argued opposite sides twice in the past once as a theist where I admitted my belief in God was based purely on faith and nothing else , this really upset several Atheists who insisted I'd no justification for feeling this way , it was a lot of fun.

I've also argued for old style communism just for fun after a few beers, now that really got people boiling mad

On a side note I learned how irrational most people are when I posed on several sites one of the brilliant questions by David Hume......Why expect the sun to rise tomorrow?

Our expectation is wholly irrational.

This extraordinary argument of Humes cased utter mayhem , marvellous fun was had by me.

Something I realized about 2 years ago that completely turned my life around was that discomfort was a good thing, the best fuel for personal growth. Only when you put yourself under fire and plant your feet firmly, refusing to run away, are you forced into finding resources inside yourself you was not even aware were there. I got into ultra-marathon running then, made it a rule to approach every single woman who I found interesting, went to group events that at the time scared me... Every time there is an opportunity to do something uncomfortable, at this point my mind immediately tells me, "Go do it!" That it opens countless doors in life is a strong understatement.

Arguing for things you disagree with is one of the ways to do that. Especially when it comes to very sensitive and closely held beliefs, making an argument against them can be extremely uncomfortable. But this is exactly how you grow a thicker skin and become psychologically invulnerable. When you have already given your beliefs a thorough thrashing on numerous occasions, what is other people challenging them? It is almost like white noise.

People who have never seriously considered arguments against their positions you see on a lot of Youtube videos. Those people who say, "A woman is someone who identifies as a woman", then are asked if a black person is someone who identifies as a black person, and, realizing they have nothing to counter it with, immediately melt down and start calling the person names. People who crumble upon encountering the slightest obstacle in life, who have never grown out of relying on mommy with everything.

RickeyHoltsclaw

@Joeseph ; "you punk"? Are you in grade school, son?

Joeseph

@RickeyHoltsclaw

Are you in grade school, son?

Were you home schooled?

Putin

@Joeseph @RickeyHoltsclaw
Surprise! You're both in the same class! You didn't even know it! You're those two autistic kids who never talk to anyone.

cheetahgod360

@Joeseph

I meant offensive as to other people. I’m not saying that it was offensive to me.

Then I suppose you have more tenacity and time than me in debating.

Joeseph

@cheetahgod360

**
Then I suppose you have more tenacity and time than me in debating **

You have every excuse under the sun as to why you cannot debate , if you have no time or ability to answer points why are you here?

Joeseph

@Putin

Says a nut who identifies as Putin
........

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

That's a pretty neat approach to life and sounds like a lot of fun.

Are there any issues you've totally moved position on on account of your encounters?

I used to believe in objective morality but not now likewise free will which I believe is illusory also my views are more nihilistic than previously but nihilistic in a positive sense as the term is normally associated in a negative way.

I guess we all have core values which seem set unless a very convincing challenge shakes our world view, the discovery of Hume and Nietzsche did that for me.

cheetahgod360

@Joeseph

I never said that. Numerically, you are exaggerating it. When someone cannot play video games for 8 hours a day the same as someone else does not mean that the someone can’t play video games at all.

cheetahgod360

@Joeseph

You should debate while you can with me. FactFinder isn’t responding and just_sayin seems to have gotten chased out of here by you and factfinder and caesar. The fact that I highlighted this means that the time you have is more limited (if this is read by said individuals.)

If Just_Sayin isn’t coming back I will consider allowing either you or Caesar to debate me but not both.

MayCaesar

Joeseph said:

@MayCaesar

That's a pretty neat approach to life and sounds like a lot of fun.

Are there any issues you've totally moved position on on account of your encounters?

I used to believe in objective morality but not now likewise free will which I believe is illusory also my views are more nihilistic than previously but nihilistic in a positive sense as the term is normally associated in a negative way.

I guess we all have core values which seem set unless a very convincing challenge shakes our world view, the discovery of Hume and Nietzsche did that for me.

I cannot think of anything that I did a 180 degree turn on (at least, not over a short period of time) - but many of my positions definitely have become a lot more nuanced. Generally, I have gained appreciation for just how much I do not know, as well as humility in individual comparisons (people who I used to think of as simpletons due to their background or career I now think of as experts in other areas of life).

I have also learned that our brains are very messy and we are subjected to all kinds of conscious and subconscious biases. Literally, having slept last night 3 hours less than usual can lead to a different house purchase decision. Leveraging these biases and making them work for us, plus creating perfect circumstances for that (such as having a good night sleep before an important event), is the key component to succeeding in life.

On the topic of morality, I think that it is a nice model, a tool allowing us to streamline our decision-making. Having a set of prescriptions applicable to a wide array of situations is convenient, better than analyzing every situation from scratch. But since every individual develops his own set of prescriptions (as long as he actually acquires his own moral system and does not just copy-paste it from somewhere), the prescriptions are going to be intrinsically subjective. There could be a degree of objectivity to it, in the sense that some moral prescriptions are extremely impractical no matter who develops them - but it is also true that some prescriptions work better for some people, and worse for others.

I guess the only moral directive that I universally apply to everyone is the "voluntary interaction" one. The problem with coercion is that it breaks the "game": when everyone interacts with each other voluntarily, then moral systems clash and compete - but when someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Do what I say, or die", then we are not talking about fair competition any more. Part of me, I guess, believes in some fundamental concept of fairness (why, I do not know; it is something to untangle in one of those hard conversations, I suppose), so when someone wants to shortcut the competition and jump straight to the prize, my spirit rebels against it.

But then, another part of me finds the romanticized image of pirates appealing: "Pillage and plunder, live free and drink rum!" This is complicated.

Putin

If Just_Sayin isn’t coming back I will consider allowing either you or Caesar to debate me but not both.

Hey! Choose me! I'm available!

Joeseph

@cheetahgod360

You don't debate,you post up a claim and run when asked a fee clarifying questions.

You're not " allowing:" May or me you're refusing as you clearly demonstrated you cannot defend your position and this is your best excuse for your intellectual cowardice

Joeseph

@cheetahgod360

You have endless excuses for your inability to defend your post , you thought you were saying something new and novel.when in actual fact the views you expressed were old a 100 years ago.

ZeusAres42

cheetahgod360 said:

My reasoning for this is that rape is a form of sexual intercourse. Sex is only meant to reproduce and NOT to consider the feelings of a side. The desire to reproduce is backed up by the need for pleasure, therefore we shouldn't consider the feelings of someone when involved in rape.

Sounds like someone rationalizing their ulterior impulses. Even other animal species exhibit consensual behaviour. Rape, by its very definition as a non-consensual act, cannot be justified or normalized by biological imperatives alone.

cheetahgod360

@Putin

I will consider. I’ll wait one more day for fact and just. If they don’t reply I’ll let two people debate with me.

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

Very interesting post , your approach is refreshing in the sense I think the majority of people reach a stage inside where change is way too uncomfortable and challenging and best not to bother.

Surely ego has to be a main driver of why people find change difficult as most think they've reached their opinions through rational processes when a lot 9f choices are emotionally laden , most people hate to say they were mistaken.

I find it amusing the way people assume that AI in some way will be a game changer when used to make rational decisions regards social issues , moral questions, etc , etc .

Recently I played about with a few highly rated chat bots that promised " intelligent conversation " I decided to ask about biblical slavery and verses relating to that, not one of them mentioned Exodus 21 which lays down the laws for owing people as property and how one can buy , sell , beat and mistreat tem as "they are you property". Each of the chatbots made the usual " context" excuses and trotted out apologetic nonsense that right wing fundies scome up with.

Moral issues can be tricky ,with me it comes down to well being the interpretation is I admit dependent on my ideas of such which would be different to yours in some ways but not miles apart. Regards objectivity in morality I guess we could make statements that would in a way be deemed " objective" as in , " poisoning babies is not good for their well being" but again to me it's just saying " I disagree with poisoning babies" it's my disapproval nothing more.

Fairness is a equally tricky one , how do we decide on a fair society again you and I would disagree on such yet your views are perfectly valid as I think mine are , how do we decide " fairness" on a socieital scale and the dispensing of such?

Pillage , plunder and spoils of combat are very appealing to me also.It is indeed complicated

just_sayin

Joeseph said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

** you're all as useless as the tits on a boar hog.**

Why do you keep bringing your wife into this?

I see you and Just Sayin are still to terrified to debate biblical slavery

@Joeseph, you remind me of a monkey that gets mad and flings its own feces. You are always flinging crap in other people's debates about off topic issues. Very briefly about 'slavery in the Bible'

The Bible talks about slavery like it talks about divorce. It isn't really 'pro' slavery, but recognizes its existence and the laws it mentions are protections to those in that situation. Slavery existed long before the Bible was written. It existed primarily because of poverty. The word for slave in the Bible can mean 'slave' but almost always means 'servant'. Nowhere in the Bible is chattel or Antebellum slavery endorsed. What is described is much different than that:

1) You could not kidnap someone to be a slave - this was a crime that could be punished by death. Slave trader is listed as a sin in the Bible. If you got a foreign slave who was kidnapped, you could also be killed for that, so even foreign slaves could not be kidnapped.
2) Jewish slavery was voluntary. You could only serve for up to 6 years and the boss had to pay the 'slave' for their services - usually giving land, providing a trade, along with money - plus they were responsible for housing, clothing and feeding the individual. (Note: Foreign slaves could serve longer - but not beyond the year of jubilee, they were paid according to the number of years till the year of Jubilee, while the contract for services could be passed on to descendants - the term of service could not be extended beyond the year of Jubilee in general, and they could go free sooner if they paid the agreed on price, or if someone else paid the owner the agreed price, historically any foreign slave could be immediately reclassified as a Jewish slave if they announced they were converts to Judaism - that applied to all foreign slaves for any reason).
3) The slave/servant did not lose their rights. They couldn't be permanently injured without the contract being declared paid in full. If they were injured, the master/boss had to immediate pay in full, pay for the healthcare of the individual, and face any laws they had broken. The slave could own slaves also, and could inherit the master/bosses stuff. They were able to take off the Sabbath and participate in any Jewish feast They did not lose their rights. Foreign slaves were allowed to keep their own food laws.
4) If the slave/servant left their master/boss, they could not be forced back. Jews were expected to house slaves that had left and not return them. They were to be treated with respect because Israel had once been a slave in a foreign land. This differs from other nations codes from the day. This applied to any slave for any reason. That's why slaves from other countries actually fled to Israel. Even a slave wife was permitted to leave and was not to be forced to go back.
5) According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the slavery of Israelites was abolished by the prophets after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon. Jeremiah stated for it to end, due to abuses, as well as Nehemiah. While slavery still existed in Israel afterwards, it was because Israel was a vassal state to other countries and could not enforce its own laws on the matter.

There is lots more nuance to the discussion - for example thieves had to serve the one they stole from until they had paid off their debt, even if it went more than 6 years. This is in part because Israel did not have a prison system until it was conquered by Babylon and later Rome. There are other cases also - where someone wants to be a permanent slave, prisoners of war, and concubines (slaves who then become wives).

Again, the Bible does not support the kind of slavery that was seen in Antebellum south were the slaves were kidnapped, had no rights, No one is running from you, @Joeseph. Don't make us laugh. Some of us actually are very busy and just haven't had the time to clean up all the feces being flung by an angry monkey.

cheetahgod360

Well uhh never mind. I can only choose one more since just is here

just_sayin

cheetahgod360 said:

Well uhh never mind. I can only choose one more since just is here

Feel free to debate anyone you want. You don't have to wait for me.

Help me to understand a few things about your argument.

1) If the victim disagrees with the rapist, who decides who is right between them? From your comments I get that the argument has embraced a might makes right position. Is that correct? Does the morality or rationality of rape depend on who achieves their goals? The victim does not achieve her goals. So why would it be OK to deny her achieving her desired outcome?
2) Would you apply the same principles to other moral situations - for example sexually assaulting a child to get meet your own personal goals or needs? Killing someone to get their stuff? And if so, why is this position more beneficial or moral than one that recognizes the rights of individuals?

Joeseph

@just_sayin

ARGUMENT TOPIC : Just sayin makes the case that biblical slavery was not slavery as such and had a lot going for it ........

Leviticus 25:44-46New International Version

44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Now read below Just sayins attempts to justify and re -interpret the above verse

you remind me of a monkey that gets mad and flings its own feces.

Leave your wife out of this. Funny how you so-called christians always accuse Atheists of being angry.

You are always flinging crap in other people's debates about off topic issues.

Nope, I'm just pulling you up on your claim that you would debate biblical slavery but then ran .....don't worry Ricky ran also.

Very briefly about 'slavery in the Bible'

The Bible talks about slavery like it talks about divorce. It isn't really 'pro' slavery,

God lays down the rules for slavery hows that not pro?

but recognizes its existence and the laws it mentions are protections to those in that situation.

You mean like " slaves are your property " and you may beat your slaves?

Slavery existed long before the Bible was written. It existed primarily because of poverty.

Tell me when is it " moral " to wn people as property?

The word for slave in the Bible can mean 'slave' but almost always means 'servant'. Nowhere in the Bible is chattel or Antebellum slavery endorsed. What is described is much different than that:

You need to read a bible.

1) You could not kidnap someone to be a slave - this was a crime that could be punished by death.

Who mentioned kidnapping? Also what about taking people captive in a war and enslaving them what do you call that?

Slave trader is listed as a sin in the Bible. If you got a foreign slave who was kidnapped, you could also be killed for that, so even foreign slaves could not be kidnapped

Yet god said you could purchase slaves from foreigners , you really haven't read your bible have you? Why are you ranting about kidnapping?

.

2) Jewish slavery was voluntary. You could only serve for up to 6 years and the boss had to pay the 'slave' for their services - usually giving land, providing a trade, along with money - plus they were responsible for housing, clothing and feeding the individual. (Note: Foreign slaves could serve longer - but not beyond the year of jubilee, they were paid according to the number of years till the year of Jubilee, while the contract for services could be passed on to descendants - the term of service could not be extended beyond the year of Jubilee in general, and they could go free sooner if they paid the agreed on price, or if someone else paid the owner the agreed price, historically any foreign slave could be immediately reclassified as a Jewish slave if they announced they were converts to Judaism - that applied to all foreign slaves for any reason).

God listed preferential treatment for Jews he said his own people were never to be treated as other slaves would you deny this?

Foreign slaves were your property for life and your children's inheritance, do you deny this?

3) The slave/servant did not lose their rights

It's remarkable you're actually agreeing owning others as property is morally good.

. They couldn't be permanently injured without the contract being declared paid in full. If they were injured, the master/boss had to immediate pay in full, pay for the healthcare of the individual, and face any laws they had broken.

A master could beat his slaves as much as he wished once they didn't die.

The slave could own slaves also, and could inherit the master/bosses stuff. They were able to take off the Sabbath and participate in any Jewish feast They did not lose their rights. Foreign slaves were allowed to keep their own food laws.

Wow! Owning people as property and being allowed beat , buy and sell them is according to you morally sound.

4) If the slave/servant left their master/boss, they could not be forced back. Jews were expected to house slaves that had left and not return them. They were to be treated with respect because Israel had once been a slave in a foreign land. This differs from other nations codes from the day. This applied to any slave for any reason. That's why slaves from other countries actually fled to Israel. Even a slave wife was permitted to leave and was not to be forced to go back.

5) According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the slavery of Israelites was abolished by the prophets after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon. Jeremiah stated for it to end, due to abuses, as well as Nehemiah. While slavery still existed in Israel afterwards, it was because Israel was a vassal state to other countries and could not enforce its own laws on the matter.

Foreign slaves were your property for life they were not free to leave.

There is lots more nuance to the discussion - for example thieves had to serve the one they stole from until they had paid off their debt, even if it went more than 6 years. This is in part because Israel did not have a prison system until it was conquered by Babylon and later Rome. There are other cases also - where someone wants to be a permanent slave, prisoners of war, and concubines (slaves who then become wives).

What part of" you may buy your slaves from Foreign lands " do you not comprehend.

Again, the Bible does not support the kind of slavery that was seen in Antebellum south were the slaves were kidnapped, had no rights,

It certainly does support it and the verses I'm referring to were used by your " christian " ancestors in the deep south to justify slavery don't tell me you deny this also?

No one is running from you, @Joeseph. Don't make us laugh.

You're promising a long time now along with mad Rickey to debate it and the pair of you are running ever since.

Some of us actually are very busy and just haven't had the time to clean up all the feces being flung by an angry monkey.

Yet the only ones in permanent furies are you and Rickey in hilarious attempts to justify every depravity your eternally angry god engages in.

Factfinder

just_sayin said:

Joeseph said:

@RickeyHoltsclaw

** you're all as useless as the tits on a boar hog.**

Why do you keep bringing your wife into this?

I see you and Just Sayin are still to terrified to debate biblical slavery

@Joeseph, you remind me of a monkey that gets mad and flings its own feces. You are always flinging crap in other people's debates about off topic issues. Very briefly about 'slavery in the Bible'

The Bible talks about slavery like it talks about divorce. It isn't really 'pro' slavery, but recognizes its existence and the laws it mentions are protections to those in that situation. Slavery existed long before the Bible was written. It existed primarily because of poverty. The word for slave in the Bible can mean 'slave' but almost always means 'servant'. Nowhere in the Bible is chattel or Antebellum slavery endorsed. What is described is much different than that:

1) You could not kidnap someone to be a slave - this was a crime that could be punished by death. Slave trader is listed as a sin in the Bible. If you got a foreign slave who was kidnapped, you could also be killed for that, so even foreign slaves could not be kidnapped.
2) Jewish slavery was voluntary. You could only serve for up to 6 years and the boss had to pay the 'slave' for their services - usually giving land, providing a trade, along with money - plus they were responsible for housing, clothing and feeding the individual. (Note: Foreign slaves could serve longer - but not beyond the year of jubilee, they were paid according to the number of years till the year of Jubilee, while the contract for services could be passed on to descendants - the term of service could not be extended beyond the year of Jubilee in general, and they could go free sooner if they paid the agreed on price, or if someone else paid the owner the agreed price, historically any foreign slave could be immediately reclassified as a Jewish slave if they announced they were converts to Judaism - that applied to all foreign slaves for any reason).
3) The slave/servant did not lose their rights. They couldn't be permanently injured without the contract being declared paid in full. If they were injured, the master/boss had to immediate pay in full, pay for the healthcare of the individual, and face any laws they had broken. The slave could own slaves also, and could inherit the master/bosses stuff. They were able to take off the Sabbath and participate in any Jewish feast They did not lose their rights. Foreign slaves were allowed to keep their own food laws.
4) If the slave/servant left their master/boss, they could not be forced back. Jews were expected to house slaves that had left and not return them. They were to be treated with respect because Israel had once been a slave in a foreign land. This differs from other nations codes from the day. This applied to any slave for any reason. That's why slaves from other countries actually fled to Israel. Even a slave wife was permitted to leave and was not to be forced to go back.
5) According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, the slavery of Israelites was abolished by the prophets after the destruction of the Temple of Solomon. Jeremiah stated for it to end, due to abuses, as well as Nehemiah. While slavery still existed in Israel afterwards, it was because Israel was a vassal state to other countries and could not enforce its own laws on the matter.

There is lots more nuance to the discussion - for example thieves had to serve the one they stole from until they had paid off their debt, even if it went more than 6 years. This is in part because Israel did not have a prison system until it was conquered by Babylon and later Rome. There are other cases also - where someone wants to be a permanent slave, prisoners of war, and concubines (slaves who then become wives).

Again, the Bible does not support the kind of slavery that was seen in Antebellum south were the slaves were kidnapped, had no rights, No one is running from you, @Joeseph. Don't make us laugh. Some of us actually are very busy and just haven't had the time to clean up all the feces being flung by an angry monkey.

@just_sayin

Amazing. After being gone for days @Joeseph post 3 bible verses out of Leviticus and you fail to even acknowledge them, not to mention address their content head on. Typed a whole page just to hem haw your way around the point. Level insults and deny you're running from the issue as you're dodging it. Sad day for your faith.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Who might join Simone Biles on Team USA?

In this Debate

There is nothing inherently wrong about rape, debate me

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Leviticus 25:44-46New International Version

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch