cuchulain

Quite true. And I hope I wasn't appearing as though that was what I was trying to demonstrate. On an aside...it baffles me, that I have to debate changing definitions on something as simple as free will. It's in the dictionary. Why try to make out like slavery is a choice? I just don't grasp it...

Free will is defined as the ability to act at ones own discretion. If a person is unable to act at their own discretion, they obviously do not have free will. Since a person might prefer to live than die, and could be given a choice between doing something they don't want to or dying(both options they would not choose at their own discretion), then NO...a person does NOT always have free will. If a person freely chooses to die, and is forced to live, that is a choice against their discretion as well.

Non sequitur. Or conclusion does not follow from facts given. Ad hominem. Or, attack the person, and not the argument. red herring. Or when the arguer tries to divert attention by changing the subject. existential fallacy. an argument has a universal premise and a particular conclusion(i.e. unicorns don't exist, so my argument must be invalid.) appeal to the stone. or, dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof of its absurdity. definitional retreat. or, changing the meaning of a word to deal with an objection raised in the original wording. ignoratio elenchi, or an argument that may be relevant but misses the point, does not address the question. for example, how does the existence of unicorns apply to the dictionary definition of free will? false analogy, or an argument by analogy when the analogy is poorly suited. thought terminating cliché, or a commonly used phrase sometimes passing as folk wisdom used to quell cognitive dissonance, conceal lack of thought entertainment, or move on to other topics, but either way ending with a cliché and not a point. Tired of listing fallacies that apply...

since your done with civility im done responding...as per our usual discourses.

by nature of free will, the choice cannot be coerced with threats of violence, at least using dictionary definitions. also, drivers enter into free will agreement upon obtaining a license to follow the law regarding driving. a slave does not.

society limits free will in its nature. imposing rules on others is a limiting, although most consent to it once they are capable to do so. those who use force to enslave others usurp that free will. those who hold slaves that were already slaves also usurp that free will.

so certain extremes aren't harmful, while others are. that should tell the followers a bit about their ideas, i should think.

free will. the power of acting without constraint or at one's own discretion. constraint. a limitation. discretion. the freedom to decide what should be done. argument ad baculum. argument through force or threat to bring about acceptance of conclusion. i dont see a reasonable path to accept a decision based on coercion of a persons free will, because coercion is the opposite of free will, disallowing their freedom to decide what should be done via the fallacy argument ad baculum, or threatening force if a condition(slavery) is not accepted.

i have recently began to wonder about extremists. Christian, Muslim, most i can think of is bad. but what would an extreme Buddhist, or pacifist, be like?

i dont consider a torturous death or slavery a valid choice...its the same logic to say a woman had a choice between torturous death and sex so it isnt rape.

It's funny to me. So many Christians can back up their points of view with biblical scripture, and I understand the scripture they quote as being relevant to what they claim. It makes sense when you look at the scripture they quote separately. But then some other Christian comes along with a completely different understanding because of completely different scripture. Isn't that definitive contradiction in the bible? When you can point to one scripture that says do this, and another that says doing that is wrong?

I don't have an argument to make slavery right.

There is choice involved in the first place to play the game at its rules. Thus the pitcher and batter both opted into the game, whereas a slave does NOT opt in.

87 percent of my state is Christian. A LOT of cars drive around with Christian bumper stickers, and a lot of people have signs in their yards, or in some other way are advertising they support Christianity over Atheism. Specifically over Atheism. The most prevalent sticker I notice is "If you are offended by this now, wait till you stand before it in judgement", with a picture of the cross. I just don't grasp the idea of promoting in an area that is majority Christian already. And I got stopped the other day by an evangelizer who asked me if I had heard the good news. Really? This is the 21st century in the United States. I cannot honestly think of a single solitary individual in any circumstance who hasn't "heard the good news", I think it might be time to update their pick up line.

I usually try to avoid sweeping statements these days, so to start with something so absolute puts me back on my heels to start. It inherently pushes my brain to attempt to discover if there is ever a good reason for slavery. The definition of culture I believe to be espoused by this particular question is the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group. The definition of moral is of or relating to principles of right and wrong behavior. So the question as I understand it is any race, religion, or social group that doesn't actively oppose with their customary beliefs or social form the practice of owning another individual in a dominant fashion is wrong behavior. In essence, the question is self defeating. The proposition it lays out is that someone must dominantly determine that slavery is wrong and enforce that determination upon those who would have otherwise, which inherently makes the latter group fall into the category of slave...which is exactly what the question presupposes as wrong behavior.

i pick an apple from a tree. my neighbor picks an orange, same tree as mine. a friend picks a plum, again same tree. all the fruits look the same, taste the same, ARE the same. just different names. but the thing we call it doesnt change its chemistry, its dna, or its very essence. it might be a pear, and were all wrong.

i tend to think if native americans believed in divine beings, and they did(at least the tribes i am familiar with), they were religious. i guess it could be a difference of terminology. many christians claim to follow the truth, not religion...but that dont make it so.

It IS just a religious one though...

im less than 5 miles away from a redbox, so about two thirds a gallon at 2.37 a gallon adds on about 1.50ish...yeah, i do netflix too. but on things they dont have, redbox is fine.

there was a video store near me that closed a short time back. i wasnt shocked. i prefer the store, but the dvds rarely were functional and the store owner always acted like i was personally destroying his business, all the while with a sign protesting redbox on his counter. and turns out he charged three times what redbox did(i found out after he closed and i started using redbox...shh.).

i got up the other day and walked into my front room and my wife says 'oh you up?', to which i replied 'nope im having an out of body experience'.

I never did bring it up...just re read those posts. Nope. I sure didn't say anything about logic in this topic.

why doesn't it?

your or my inability to prove the reality of truth does not mean i should accept or reject any claim. that would be poor logic.

historically, the earth was considered flat. did the truth change?