What part of irrelevent do you not understand?

OK. For the intellectually challenged:

Q: First of all explain to me how it isnt compasinate to kill or put down something that has no quality of life and no real life any more.

A: It is not compassionate to kill something that has no quality of life becuase the moon is made of blue cheese.
(This is the: "it isn't" answer, complete with random invalid justification)

Satisfied? Now, any chance of anyone progressing this argument?
I must admit I'm morbidly curious as to where you think you are going with this.


Also:
Since no-one but Yepela has sought to logically address my previous argument, I assume it is safe to conclude that people now realise that justifying violence with compassion is an inherently weak argument.

Its quite amazing how quick people to jump onto an (obviously) losing argument. I really can't see any good way to attack this. Yepela's claim of generic vs specific was good - but ultimately just leads to closing the case in my favour.

I think the best option might have been to accept that compassion as an excuse for violence was weak - but can only be considered so, if there is a stronger alternative - then challenge me to provide a stronger alternative. Which even if it failed would have been a far more interesting discussion.

And no, I'm rapidly losing interest in persuing this further, so I'm not going to try and provide a stronger alternative now. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.

Another great example of DEBATE FORUM WITH PETTIFOGGERY.

Meh.
Apologies, but being clear and concise didn't seem to work.

Don't take it too hard. It was a good argument. This whole thread has just...degenerated.

Agreed.
I suppose it was too optimistic to actually expect to have reasonable and logical debate on a forum.

The wrong medium really.

Le sigh. I was hoping to make a good point. But you people turned it into yet another silly argument about things that ARE SUPPOSED TO BLOODY STAY IC.

From the point of view of character motivations. Absolutely.
Or applications of said argument.

Analysis of strengths or weaknesses of an argument was something I thought could be dealt with objectively.
I stand corrected.

Well, I don't know what you were expecting if you wouldn't answer a relevant question in a rational way. If you're not going to deal with other peoples' arguments you don't really have any good basis for claiming other people aren't "dealing with things objectively".

I'm sorry Razorvine, but your argument is about as strong as "Males are good car mechanics."

You seem to want to ignore logic for the sake of your own appeasment.

Relevant question?
Don't recall seeing much in the way of argument either... specifics vs generic, euthanasia as a specific case against.

Apart from that, descent into in-character views... a humouros suggestion that most killing is non-violent... was there anything else?



Prove that.

Most car mechanics are male, thus males are good car mechanics

Its the same argument, your making a generalization based on your perception of what is mostly and what is not mostly compassion and or Killing.

Its a gerneralization with as many wrong assurtions as correct assurtions. Every case that disproves the general rule, makes the general rule less strong.

If you look at killing as a means to an end, instead of an end itself, then killing can become compassionate, just like a doctor chopping off a person's limb which is infected is almost universally seen as compassionate, even though the act itself is violent.

That is not an answer sweety, I ask you to explain how it isnt compasinate to put someone who is suffering out of their misery and you answer with it is and it isnt?

It is a simple yes or no answer, If you agree that it is compasinate to put them out of their misery then you say yes I agree with you on that.

If you disagree that putting someone who is suffering and has no life no happyness no nothing etc isnt compasinate then you say No it isnt and explain why.

I cant pick one for you sweety, you need to decide for yourself.




Ive asked it and im still waiting for you to stop trying to avoid the question and just simply answer it.

There is no way to defend this argument because it isnt an arguement, im not trying to argue with you, Im trying to explain to you. You couldnt understand my point at the start so im trying to keep it exceptionaly simple and build up from there so you can understand it. Im trying to explain my point to you, answer the simple question and I can easily go on from there to help you understand. Once ive explained it all and hopefully you understand then try and pick it apart.

Ferlas, Razorvine does understand your point, they just don't want to accept it, and so are playing games.

I've only answered it what, about four times, now...


If you want yes or no, how about we go with: (flips a coin) Yes.
I'm still waiting for any progression of your argument.

I'd like, if I may, to christen this defence the 'Ferlas distraction'.
It runs along the lines of "You are completely wrong because... - look at this shiny thing over here".
It then involves repeated distraction until everyone has fogotten the original point.


Daganev:
Great! At last we have something resembling coherent argument.
I'd like to actually address this properly, so I'll answer a little later when I have a bit more time.

Oh, just bloody close the thread already. I come here to make a point and you people start bickering over IC things and arguing for argument's sake...

I don't see how this is the same argument.
In fact, I'm not entirely sure which part of my argument you are attacking.
Is this directed at "Killing is violent"? In which case I do not see the analogy.
Would you prefer me to ammend to "Killing is nearly always violent"? (which is still sufficient for my argument)

I think you need to justify the analogy a little better before theres any point in me trying to refute it.

Also, as a tip: Arguing against an analogy tends to be a little weak, its a form of misdirection. It makes it appear that you can't argue directly against my point, so you'll draw an analogy that you can argue against. Be more direct if you can.



'can become' I think is the key phrase here.
At no point have I argued that it is not possible to kill for compassionate reasons. In fact I have gone to great lengths not to be drawn on the issue.

But are you trying to show that killing is usually done for compassionate reasons.
I put it to you that it is not.

And, therefore, in most cases killing will not be an act of compassion.

So... following that through... any claim that it is OK to kill for compassion, has a weight of evidence already assembled against it, since normally it is not true.

Therefore you need to provide justification before you start. e.g. 'in this case it is OK because...'.

Therefore you are arguing from an inherently weaker position.

You follow?




But some examples of how to actually argue logically would be well worthwhile.
Though granted, this is a bit too one-sided to demonstrate properly.

Something like:
Magnagora is the least evil city because...

would be more interesting, (and much much harder for me to defend!).


But yeah... arguing just for the sake of it!
Guilty as charged.

What about you create a thread for this kind of argument? Also, there are few things more stupid than arguing over IC things. It's worse than watching Star Wars dorks arguing over who shot first (Han!).

This (meaning my argument) doesn't have much to do with in game application.
Other than to deterimine what might be considered a 'strong' or 'weak' argument.

In-game this has very little real effect, as players are used to clinging to any number of 'weak' arguments to justify their actions. Question is, does that really matter? Perhaps not. Though I tend to feel it may have an affect on the quality of roleplay. As such, it seems a little education couldn't hurt.

Agreed though, that this specific example (using compassion to justify killing) is a trivial case.

Ok despite your excelent manners thanks for finally making a straight decision.

Now you have agreed that is is perfectly compasinate to kill someone who has no quality of life lets move on.

Now we come to the point about insanity, what if that person is so insane that they have no quality of life but they cant see it?

Like a rabid dog, insane and it has no quality of life and should be put down you have already agreed to this. But it dosnt want to be put down because its obviously insane.


You agree that putting someone down is compasinate if they have no quality of life and they want to be killed razorvine.

Second Question:
Do you agree that if it is obvious that someone or something has no quality of life but is to insane or out of their mind to realise it(or in fact realise pretty much anything going on around them) then it still is compasinate to put them down or kill them?

Also, just do you dont get confused again razor you can answer this question buy doing

A: Yes I agree with that
or
B: No I dont agree with that because (insert reason here)

So it's a metaargument. How comforting.