Then you are not consistent. For one example you are willing to allow suffering because the 50 years of torture is less than 3^^^3 dust holocaust yet. You claim that suffering is suffering. Yet only 10 deprived rapist already has you changing your thoughts.
I do not have an answer. If anything I would consider my self a weak dusk specker. The only thing that I claim is I am not arrogant, I am consistent in my stance. I do not know the answer but am willing to explore the dilemma of torture vs speck, and rape vs deprived rapists. Torture is rape is it not? Yet I will allow torture for 50 years because you do not believe that deprived rapist are not suffering. I am afraid that is not up to you to decide.
All I ask is to present tough questions. The down votes I believe are hurting discussion as I have never declared any thing controversial accept ask people to reconcile their beliefs to be consistent. I am actually quite disappointing in how easily people are frustrated. I apologize if I have pissed you off.
You must have missed the part of my response where I say that given your premises, yes, I choose to let the fucking rapists commit the crime. The rest of my post just details how your premises are wrong. I am internally consistent.
Your comment was saying that “if you change your answer here, it shows that you are not consistent.” I replied with reasons that this is not true, and you replied by continuing on the premise that it is true.
No! You do not get to decide whether I’m consistent!
See alsothis comment, which deserves a medal. Your problem is wrong, which is why you’re coming to this incorrect conclusion that I am inconsistent.
Thanks for your reply. You are right you are consistent as you did admit in your second scenario that you would let the sickos have their fun.
I would like to continue the discussion on why my problem is wrong in a friendly and respectable way, but the negative score points really are threatening my ability to post, which is quite unfortunate.
Then you are not consistent. For one example you are willing to allow suffering because the 50 years of torture is less than 3^^^3 dust holocaust yet. You claim that suffering is suffering. Yet only 10 deprived rapist already has you changing your thoughts.
I do not have an answer. If anything I would consider my self a weak dusk specker. The only thing that I claim is I am not arrogant, I am consistent in my stance. I do not know the answer but am willing to explore the dilemma of torture vs speck, and rape vs deprived rapists. Torture is rape is it not? Yet I will allow torture for 50 years because you do not believe that deprived rapist are not suffering. I am afraid that is not up to you to decide.
All I ask is to present tough questions. The down votes I believe are hurting discussion as I have never declared any thing controversial accept ask people to reconcile their beliefs to be consistent. I am actually quite disappointing in how easily people are frustrated. I apologize if I have pissed you off.
You must have missed the part of my response where I say that given your premises, yes, I choose to let the fucking rapists commit the crime. The rest of my post just details how your premises are wrong. I am internally consistent.
Your comment was saying that “if you change your answer here, it shows that you are not consistent.” I replied with reasons that this is not true, and you replied by continuing on the premise that it is true.
No! You do not get to decide whether I’m consistent!
See also this comment, which deserves a medal. Your problem is wrong, which is why you’re coming to this incorrect conclusion that I am inconsistent.
Grognor,
Thanks for your reply. You are right you are consistent as you did admit in your second scenario that you would let the sickos have their fun.
I would like to continue the discussion on why my problem is wrong in a friendly and respectable way, but the negative score points really are threatening my ability to post, which is quite unfortunate.