kurious_kathy explain this.

[Ducky]

Without sterilising them first, just to be safe, yes, a grievous sin.

Bah. I look forward to seeing the antichrist born.

 

[UrsulaV]

Without sterilising them first, just to be safe, yes, a grievous sin.

Is Iacchus even allowed to do that unless he can prove she exists first?

 

[kmortis]

I read the bible once, nice story, I heard Tarantino's doing the screenplay.

Oo-oo Who's Uma slated to play? I'd choose Jezebel. And Samuel L. Jackson would make a terrific Moses "These are the words of the LORD, Muddah Fu**ah! Now, stop WORSHIPPING that DAMNED golden calf, before I put a cap in yo' muddah fu**in' ass!"

 

[Taffer]

Kathy, I do not think I have free will. Why do you care?

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Bah. I look forward to seeing the antichrist born.

Unfortunately, my mother wasn't into the whole videotaping the joy of childbirth thing, or I'd send you the video.

 

[SirPhilip]

Kathy, I do not think I have free will. Why do you care?

It doesn't seem she has free will, much less the capability to asses why she cares about why she does or says things. Maybe you should ask Jesus, after all, Jesus is behind the wheel because she can't drive herself. As to you not thinking you have free will, your behavior, thoughts and actions can be conceivably reduced to a point that seperates self-organizing from machine intelligence. Something completely without free will cannot act out of it's own volition, so it would be more accurate to say "I only have a small degree of free will..".

 

[David Swidler]

I see. They are "clearly the same," even thought the Bible doesn't describe them as being clearly the same. How precisely did you come to the conclusion that verse 25 was talking about all mitigating circumstances when it describes a very particular mitigating circumstance, i.e. in a field away from help? I would think that the inspired word of God would have been a little more clear on the matter of when to put a rape victim to death and when to not put a rape victim to death.

They're clearly the same because nowhere else does the bible describe a case in which a cry for help wouldn't be helpful. That's what the "field" case is meant to demonstrate. It's simple a fortiori to apply the reasoning to coercion on pain of death. If you can find a reason to distinguish between the cases, go right ahead. I don't see one.

ETA: I'd like to complete the picture for my earlier statement that the victim of adulterous/incestuous rape is not liable for the death penalty. The Talmud notes that whereas in general, when a Jew must choose between life and transgressing a commandment, life takes precedence, for the three cardinal sins - idolatry, sexual immorality and murder - the Jew is required to accept death rather than violate them. However, for one who nevertheless opts to violate them rather than die, the courts will not pursue a case against him.

 

[Taffer]

It doesn't seem she has free will, much less the capability to asses why she cares about why she does or says things. Maybe you should ask Jesus, after all, Jesus is behind the wheel because she can't drive herself. As to you not thinking you have free will, your behavior, thoughts and actions can be conceivably reduced to a point that seperates self-organizing from machine intelligence. Something completely without free will cannot act out of it's own volition, so it would be more accurate to say "I only have a small degree of free will..".

I disagree. I believe that, given the exact same conditions, one would behave in exactly the same way every time. There is an assumption in your statement saying that "something completely without free will cannot act of it's own volition", and that is some form of "ownership" to a body. Does a robot have free will? Many would say not, as they are 'forced', so to speak, to follow their programming. Does a computer program have free will? Again, no. There is no difference between a computer program, reacting to input, then a human, reacting to stimuli. We are, essentially, robots. So no, I don't think we have any free will at all. We have the illusion of free will, yes, but this is a different thing. Free will requires the ability to come to a choice, and being able to choose freely. I do not believe we have this ability, given the exact same choice.

 

[Ossai]

Bri

Ossai, he addressed the example concerning Lot offering his daughters to the mob here and the example concerning Numbers 31 refers to captives of war, which was already addressed here.

Are you referring to two other examples?

Apparently you still can’t read.
David Swindler’s first response doesn’t address what I brought up at all, it was merely a comment on it.

The second response deals with Duteronomy not Numbers.

Both examples still stand unanswered.

Ossai

 

[Bri]

Apparently you still can’t read.
David Swindler’s first response doesn’t address what I brought up at all, it was merely a comment on it.

The second response deals with Duteronomy not Numbers.

Both examples still stand unanswered.

Uhhh...OK. If you say so.

-Bri

 

[Ossai]

Bri
You linked to the responses yourself.
Did you even bother to read them?

Ossai

 

[Bri]

Bri
You linked to the responses yourself.
Did you even bother to read them?

Yes.

-Bri

 

[SirPhilip]

I disagree. I believe that, given the exact same conditions, one would behave in exactly the same way every time. There is an assumption in your statement saying that "something completely without free will cannot act of it's own volition", and that is some form of "ownership" to a body. Does a robot have free will? Many would say not, as they are 'forced', so to speak, to follow their programming. Does a computer program have free will? Again, no. There is no difference between a computer program, reacting to input, then a human, reacting to stimuli. We are, essentially, robots. So no, I don't think we have any free will at all. We have the illusion of free will, yes, but this is a different thing. Free will requires the ability to come to a choice, and being able to choose freely. I do not believe we have this ability, given the exact same choice.

Good points, although I still don't feel that entirely satisfies the issue (and it isn't, in any stretch of the imagination, a simple one..). What I based my comments on was primarily the obsolesence of classical mechanics, and factors acting on biological processes can be reduced to a point where they become less certain. It's a simple assumption to make that while almost all decision making could likely be determined taking into account external factors, you couldn't achieve 100% certainty. There could of course be some things I'm not considering here, but on the face of it, it seems irrational to say behavior of matter on a micro scale in the brain doesn't effect it or isn't even fundamental.

To quote this article on the Stanford University website:

"Unless there is a complete independence of mental events from physical events, then even for free decisions there has to be indeterminism of a specific sort at specific junctures in certain brain processes."

 

[Bri]

I disagree. I believe that, given the exact same conditions, one would behave in exactly the same way every time.

Of course, quantum theory would disagree even without free will.

-Bri

 

[Ladewig]

They're clearly the same because nowhere else does the bible describe a case in which a cry for help wouldn't be helpful. That's what the "field" case is meant to demonstrate. It's simple a fortiori to apply the reasoning to coercion on pain of death. If you can find a reason to distinguish between the cases, go right ahead. I don't see one.

ETA: I'd like to complete the picture for my earlier statement that the victim of adulterous/incestuous rape is not liable for the death penalty. The Talmud notes that whereas in general, when a Jew must choose between life and transgressing a commandment, life takes precedence, for the three cardinal sins - idolatry, sexual immorality and murder - the Jew is required to accept death rather than violate them. However, for one who nevertheless opts to violate them rather than die, the courts will not pursue a case against him.

Give me some time to consider your point.

 

[Ossai]

Bri

You linked to the responses yourself.
Did you even bother to read them?

Yes.

Your reading comprehension really is that bad. That explains quiet a bit.
Is English your first language? Or did you just not see the difference between Duteronomy and Numbers?

Ossai

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

Or did you just not see the difference between Duteronomy and Numbers?

Well, they're both outdated and full of st; I could see how one might confuse them.

 

[Bri]

Your reading comprehension really is that bad. That explains quiet a bit.
Is English your first language? Or did you just not see the difference between Duteronomy and Numbers?

Apparently, I'm not the one having difficulty comprehending the English language:

Ossai, he addressed the example concerning Lot offering his daughters to the mob here and the example concerning Numbers 31 refers to captives of war, which was already addressed here [in David Swindler's post concerning a similar passage in Deuteronomy].

Typing must be difficult with your foot constantly in your mouth.

-Bri

 

[David Swidler]

Bri, Ossai's right. The two passages are not similar. The one in Numbers recounts a specific instance of God commanding Israel to exact vengeance on the people who wronged them at Peor (the Midianite women figured prominently in that). The one in Deuteronomy is a standing commandment for war in general.

 

[Iacchus]

So no, I don't think we have any free will at all. We have the illusion of free will, yes, Free will requires the ability to come to a choice, and being able to choose freely. I do not believe we have this ability, given the exact same choice.

Can robots be cynical?