| Author |
Message |
| < Pontification |
|
 Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:17 am
|
|
|
Power-Mad Nazi Mod
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 2750
Location: Cuba
|
|
20 pages Grim? Jesus, you must be writing your magnum opus.
_________________
|
|
|
|
 |
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:23 am
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
| grim squeeker wrote: |
You are jumping to conclusions here based on no evidence whatsoever. |
There is evidence, his past, I don't think his illogical past and this are a coincidence.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:33 am
|
|
|
Power-Mad Nazi Mod
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 2750
Location: Cuba
|
|
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| grim squeeker wrote: |
You are jumping to conclusions here based on no evidence whatsoever. |
There is evidence, his past, I don't think his illogical past and this are a coincidence. |
That's not evidence. That actually goes against the definition of the word. Evidence is something that furnishes proof, you cannot use something that someone did in the past and say "hey he did this before so he must be doing it now!" that's unsound logic; and more importantly, doesn't prove anything.
Also I fail to see how his "illogical past" somehow has anything to do with his "slow-witted present". The things that you argued with him about, and the subject we are arguing about now is not the same thing.
I don't understand why you are persisting with this, as it is clearly a subjective matter and not something you can prove. All you are doing is attempting to argue for your opinion and not fact. This a completely hollow argument and is not really worth fighting. I say that you are going to read into this and assume what you want, but don't try to garnish that as proof of anything since there's no way you can effectively do so because of a lack of genuine evidence, and speculation is not evidence no matter what you say.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:48 am
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
I'm just saying there is indeed plenty of justification for it. He certainly hasn't been acting like a smart person.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:17 am
|
|
|
Forgotten Horror
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 2531
Location: Outer Space
|
|
| Lord Cheesus wrote: |
| 20 pages Grim? Jesus, you must be writing your magnum opus. |
Up to 23. Ive learned through experience that my opponent thinks that unless a rebuttal is in the post he is reading, it never happened.
I won the argument quite convincingly, but his stubborn ignorance turned a few of the newbies into his sycophants (Who believe that the outcome is undecided), so i am dropping the carpet bombing of the century to shut him (and them) up. I still have about 30 more posts to cover before its ready. Should be done soon. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:19 am
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
| grim squeeker wrote: |
| Up to 23. Ive learned through experience that my opponent thinks that unless a rebuttal is in the post he is reading, it never happened. |
That's because he's a ferrous cranus, even if you put it in the same post he still won't get it.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:07 am
|
|
|
Abusive Admin
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude
|
|
Well, I can say I completely lost interest in this thread after I realized Theognome had an unattackable position. I didn't see a point in continuing to fight for the Pope because, unfortunately, the best the Pope attackers can hope for is a stalemate. Why he's drawing this out is beyond me. I can only guess he is enjoying making you all tire yourselves out with an endless cycle of semantic arguments.
However, in the interest of bringing this to a close a little faster, here's why I ducked out of this early...
1) You have to show the Pope knew exactly what happenned, with sufficient evidence to act. This is impossible, because you only have third-hand accounts. Do you know what was discussed in the meeting of Cardinals the Pope called to deal with the molestation charges? Do you have any way to prove that hard evidence about child molesting preists made it all the way up to the Pope?
2) You have to show the Pope failed to act sufficiently. This is also impossible, because you only have third-hand accounts. Considering how well some ranking church members in the US concealed child molestation for decades, hiding internal housekeeping that only effects preists would be even easier. Worse, since there's no way to record prevented crime, you have no way to show that the Pope's actions didn't result in fewer molestations.
See, but that's not the worst part. Even if you succeeded in steps 1 and 2, you're still screwed.
3) Morality is subjective. Assuming the Pope was told by God exactly what the preists did and still sat on his hands anyways, what then? Odds are the leader of the Catholic faith would believe sinners go to Hell. Since God is unlikely to show up on the board to settle the debate, you'll find yourself arguing with Theognome as to whether or not the Pope should have acted in God's place.
I can't stand intelectual discussions that cannot come to concensus, hence why I bailed. Though I personally believe it's our job to enforce morality, it's still just my belief. That's the problem with beliefs: you can't prove them. I'll grant that there's a lot to attack the Pope on, but it'll wind up in a philosophical war of attrition. In the end, you all will either have to declare your view of morality is objective and come off as complete egocentric jackasses, or agree that your belief the Pope is burning in hell is just that: your belief.
He's got you all beat, because you have to prove two virtually unprovable things just to tie, then prove something literially unprovable to win.
_________________
Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:31 am
|
|
|
Rambler
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1690
Location: Misourri
|
|
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| I can make well thought out cogitations on the spot, while I have yet to do so here, I have done so at other forums over the years, everything I reply to is done so immediatly after I read it. So if someone needs time, it's because they lack intelligence to think it up on the spot, plain and simple. If theo is 13, fine, he's smart, if he's a legal adult, he is not. |
This is a true stroke of genius on Anarchy_Balsac's part. An unequivicable demonstration that going to sleep after posting rather than never ceasing to post is equal to stupidity. Yet another brilliant deduction from the vast intellect that is Anarchy_Balsac.
| Irritus wrote: |
Well, I can say I completely lost interest in this thread after I realized Theognome had an unattackable position. I didn't see a point in continuing to fight for the Pope because, unfortunately, the best the Pope attackers can hope for is a stalemate. Why he's drawing this out is beyond me. I can only guess he is enjoying making you all tire yourselves out with an endless cycle of semantic arguments.
However, in the interest of bringing this to a close a little faster, here's why I ducked out of this early...
1) You have to show the Pope knew exactly what happenned, with sufficient evidence to act. This is impossible, because you only have third-hand accounts. Do you know what was discussed in the meeting of Cardinals the Pope called to deal with the molestation charges? Do you have any way to prove that hard evidence about child molesting preists made it all the way up to the Pope?
2) You have to show the Pope failed to act sufficiently. This is also impossible, because you only have third-hand accounts. Considering how well some ranking church members in the US concealed child molestation for decades, hiding internal housekeeping that only effects preists would be even easier. Worse, since there's no way to record prevented crime, you have no way to show that the Pope's actions didn't result in fewer molestations.
See, but that's not the worst part. Even if you succeeded in steps 1 and 2, you're still screwed.
3) Morality is subjective. Assuming the Pope was told by God exactly what the preists did and still sat on his hands anyways, what then? Odds are the leader of the Catholic faith would believe sinners go to Hell. Since God is unlikely to show up on the board to settle the debate, you'll find yourself arguing with Theognome as to whether or not the Pope should have acted in God's place.
I can't stand intelectual discussions that cannot come to concensus, hence why I bailed. Though I personally believe it's our job to enforce morality, it's still just my belief. That's the problem with beliefs: you can't prove them. I'll grant that there's a lot to attack the Pope on, but it'll wind up in a philosophical war of attrition. In the end, you all will either have to declare your view of morality is objective and come off as complete egocentric jackasses, or agree that your belief the Pope is burning in hell is just that: your belief.
He's got you all beat, because you have to prove two virtually unprovable things just to tie, then prove something literially unprovable to win. |
I can certainly understand why you bailed.
The discussion that I'm pursuing (presently with E-male isn't really about the Pope; that was just the intro to the topic. The topic of this discussion is the nature of guilt, which although you did somewhat address here, is probably best left unanalyzed in your comment as it is Pope-specific.
As far as the Pope is concerned, I'm with you- I don't wanna talk about him, either. Never did.
_________________
There are three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:07 pm
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
| irritus wrote: |
3) Morality is subjective. Assuming the Pope was told by God exactly what the preists did and still sat on his hands anyways, what then? Odds are the leader of the Catholic faith would believe sinners go to Hell. Since God is unlikely to show up on the board to settle the debate, you'll find yourself arguing with Theognome as to whether or not the Pope should have acted in God's place. |
Hence why like a coward he failed to define it himself after bluffing and saying it was easily definable. The thing is, there are common things that are considered moral and immoral that theognome apparently has no grasp of. Morality is easy to grasp but hard to define, like life itself.
| profundus maximus wrote: |
| This is a true stroke of genius on Anarchy_Balsac's part. An unequivicable demonstration that going to sleep after posting rather than never ceasing to post is equal to stupidity. Yet another brilliant deduction from the vast intellect that is Anarchy_Balsac. |
Except it's more like you posted: " I'm here right now, since I'm too stupid to think of what I should say immediatly, I'll have to take a whole day" and then went to sleep . Quit digging yuour hole deeper theo.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:33 pm
|
|
|
Rambler
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1690
Location: Misourri
|
|
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| Except it's more like you posted: " I'm here right now, since I'm too stupid to think of what I should say immediatly, I'll have to take a whole day" and then went to sleep . Quit digging yuour hole deeper theo. |
Uhhhhh... Uhhhh.... Uhhh..... I dunno wut to say aboat htat. mE take annuder day two thimk on taht. uuuuUUhhHhhH......
_________________
There are three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:35 pm
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
That's the spirit, be yourself and don't have your mommy type for you.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:56 pm
|
|
|
Hells Kitchen Enforcer
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 655
|
|
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| Hence why like... |
I wish that I had at my hand eloquence of like stature with which to open my treatises. Wait, I did...in elementary school.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:58 pm
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
You're just being a pathetic grammarian.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:01 pm
|
|
|
Hells Kitchen Enforcer
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 655
|
|
And here I fancied that I cut quite a dashing figure as Grammarian.
*sigh*
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:05 pm
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
Irritus did bring something up that I of all people should have caught though. Theo is using ballistic arguements to hide his bluffs, from that sense it's pretty funny. It reveals that he is quite insecure too.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:10 pm
|
|
|
Forgotten Horror
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 2531
Location: Outer Space
|
|
...and you have shown yourself to be an arrogant egotistical prick 
Ah well... im going to get some breakfast. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:40 pm
|
|
|
Power-Mad Nazi Mod
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 2750
Location: Cuba
|
|
Whoa A_B you better watch out, lest that inflated head of yours grow bigger and crush the rest of your body under it's sheer girth.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:22 pm
|
|
|
Abusive Admin
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude
|
|
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| Irritus did bring something up that I of all people should have caught though. Theo is using ballistic arguements to hide his bluffs, from that sense it's pretty funny. It reveals that he is quite insecure too. |
Eh? No I didn't. I pointed out you could never hope to prove your side. It's not because of the limitations of being online, it's because the evidence doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, your side of the argument relies on siting the aforementioned evidence which doesn't exist. In order to prove the Pope didn't do enough, you have to show he had the information to act on and then failed to do enough.
_________________
Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:54 pm
|
|
|
Rambler
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1690
Location: Misourri
|
|
*Note- Rather than a bibliography as I go, PM me if you want references.
| E-male wrote: |
| Consider my position to be that guilt is generated by incident, not pre-existing, and all addendums to premesis as flanking and supporting that position. |
The supporting arguments presented by E-male are as follows (Sentences numbered for reference clarity):
| E-male wrote: |
| 1 For now, the example of apparent lack of inmate guilt is readily explainable through neutralization, that is, the inmate will experience guilt only in cases where it cannot be neutralized internally for each manefestation...the guilt is of course still there albeit unrecognized as such. |
| E-male wrote: |
| 2 There is indeed interaction between Father Phondlekiddi and Dicky through direct involvement as principles and with Mr. Thimbledik through indirect involvement as an observer. 3 To expand on the incurrence of guilt, Father Phondlekiddi has incurred guilt through commission; Dicky and Mr. Thimbledik through omission. 4 Beyond the incident in question, Dicky and Mr. Thimbledik share a measure of guilt for any and all subsequent strokings of others committed by Father Phondlekiddi, due to their silence after the fact. 5 However I would ask for clarification on the matter of exchange of information, as this would necessitate eye contact between principle(s) and observer at the minimum, and thus imply conscious recognition of communication. |
| E-male wrote: |
6 Guilt is indeed a part of the human condition; it is in the recognition and acknowledgement of guilt that differentiation may be observed. 7 Guilt must first be recognized, and then acknowledged, before it can be experienced. 8 With lack of recognition, such as in the case of the true reprobate or one who is simply unaware of wrongdoing, there can be no acknowledgement and experience of guilt. 9 With recognition comes acknowledgement; however it is in the form this acknowledgement takes that we find the most disparate response. 10 Denial, transferral, rationalization, and neutralization are the most common forms of guilt acknowledgment aimed at alleviating responsibility as reason for guilt, hence the necessity of experiencing guilt.
11 Denial: “I did nothing wrong.” 12 There was no action taken. 13 No one is to blame
14 Transferral: “He/they is/are responsible for what I did” How a persons past interactions with others directly affect actions taken. 15 Someone else is to blame.
16 Rationalization: “I did what I did because...” Facts are distorted in order to make actions taken appear reasonable in the context of circumstance. 17 Circumstances are to blame.
18 Neutralization: “I was forced to do what I did” Coercion to explain the actions taken. 19 Whatever forced the action is to blame.
20 Through the use of these mechanisms of guilt acknowledgement via non-acknowledgement, a person will experience guilt ONLY if they are not able to diffuse personal responsibility each time recognition occurs. 21 The person using such methods will not actually experience sensation of guilt as they are never to blame. 22 Nevertheless the guilt remains. |
| E-male wrote: |
| 23 Short answer: Guilt is generated by the event. 24 The guilt response is triggered by whatever guilt is generated by the event. |
Well, since I opened my big mouth and said I'd defend the opposing position, let's see how this goes...
You have presented some good points demonstrating that guilt is created by the event in the example vice being pre-existant. The main points of your position place the guilt squarely upon the individual- to recognize and experience guilt, and at times rationalize the non-existance of it. Also, the diffusion of guilt you have placed upon the individual, in as much as the individual is capable of denying personal responsibility.
However, there are some inconsistancies... indeed fallacies in this position, which I shall endeavor to synthesize through demonstrating that guilt in not created by the event, but is rather pre-existant to the event.
Sentence 4 I hold as invalid, as it is an extrapolation of future particular actions not presented in the defined example, and thus is not directly based on the premise situation.
Sentence 5 was addressed in an earlier thread as follows:
| Theognome wrote: |
| Eye contact would have been made, although eye-to-eye contact was not needed. In the example, only Mr. Thimbledik would have needed to have concienciously recognised the other participants. Father Phondlekiddi and Dicky did not have to be aware of his presence for this exchange to occur. |
Guilt has been defined in the English language in a number of ways. For example:
1. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense.
2. Guilty conduct; sin.
3. Remorseful awareness of having done something wrong.
4. Self-reproach for supposed inadequacy or wrongdoing.
5. feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : morbid self-reproach often manifest in marked preoccupation with the moral correctness of one's behavior <aggressive responses originating in inner guilt and uncertainty>
6. to make someone feel guilty, esp. in hopes of getting them to do something
These definitions from various lexicons show the large scope of guilt as it is understood presently by academic man. Through a mere simple syntax argument, we see the following:
1. Guilt as a verb. Guilt is shown to be a task itself, even possibly a flame war tactic.
2. Guilt as a noun. Guilt is defined as an object; a specific, tangable state of mental being. Also, it is described as a forensic state.
Now in the example, the active commissioned participant would immediately incur guilt as described in sentence #22, for the forensic aspect of guilt cannot be eliminated, it can only be dismissed (See sentences 11-19). Therefore, we must conclude:
C1. Experience of guilt is not dependent upon the awareness of guilt.
*Note- Experiencing a phenomenon does not require the awareness of it.
Phondlekiddi never spoke of the incident again. Yet, he did experience guilt. So, although the forensic definition of guilt was most likely not realized in the example, definitions 4, 3 and 2 would still become a factor, whether Phondlekiddi is aware of the guilt or not.
Dicky also experienced guilt in the example. Although he does not face forensic guilt, the self torment would cause guilt as described in #5 and possibly #4. Indeed, definition #5 is the medical psychiatric definition of the guilt in these situations, and is also not dependent upon awareness of the guilt.
Mr. Thimbledik faces guilt much the same way Dicky does. Although he may also have some forensic culpability, the example doesn't give enough data to establish that detail. None the less, the experience of the guilt phenomenon will manifest regardless of Mr. Thimbledik's awareness of it.
However, what if all three participants approve of the action described in the example? Would the guilt still be experienced? The premis states yes.
If we follow the logic of your analysis, here's what happens-
Father Phondlekiddi morally approves of the stroke. He experiences no guilt.
Dicky was also known as Little Boy Blew (He needed the money), and morally approves of the stroke. He experiences no guilt, but may be $20.00 richer.
Mr. Thimbledik pimps such little boys as a vocation, and thus morally approves of the stroke. He experiences no guilt.
Thus premis #2 is contradicted.
If we exchange experience for awareness of, then the model will fall within the premise. Sorry, E-male, but with the premise hinged upon experience, it was not good argumentation to use experience and awareness interchangeably.
Now let's use the same argument and replace experience with awareness:
Father Phondlekiddi morally approves of the stroke. He is not aware of guilt.
Dicky was also known as Little Boy Blew (He needed the money), and morally approves of the stroke. He is not aware of any guilt, but may be $20.00 richer.
Mr. Thimbledik pimps such little boys as a vocation, and thus morally approves of the stroke. He is not aware of any guilt.
This, of course, raises a different problem. Since awareness does not equal experience, how can the existance of guilt be determined? The answer goes back to sentence 6 of your position. Guilt is anatural phenomenon among mankind. recognition of guilt, by either a participant or observer, is a natural process within humanity, and that recognition will vary between individual persons. Guilt is universal; it is a natural rather than learned behavior at it's root. Persons will react to this guilt in a variety of ways, as you have eluded to, and that is the learned process. The guilt itself is primal; denial of it is to deny natural cause.
...But this does not explain whether the guilt was created by the event or was pre-existant. Also, the argument as presented appeals to experience, but does not actually connect experience to creation, only to existance. Thus, no actual argument was presented that demonstrated guilt being actually created by the actions. Fallacy- Slippery Slope.
theory: If guilt is a natural condition, then the event in the premis example can serve to demonstrate and align guilt rather than create it. For example:
Person A is born with instinctive knowledge of guilt.
Person A breaks a Law.
Person A experiences guilt.
Person A may or may not be aware of guilt.
If we apply the principle of guilt creation to the premis example, we will easily run smack into a Relativist Fallacy. With no common reference for guilt, each participant is free to define his own reality as it pertains to said guilt, even to the extent on non-creation. However, reality demands otherwise, for guilt is forensic in nature and thus has an observable, teleological process. Understanding of phenomenon, again, does not affect the nature of said phenomenon.
Thus, the premesis of the argument can only conclude that guilt must be pre-existant, and that the involvement of the participants in the premis situation give definition and direction for said guilt.
_________________
There are three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:50 pm
|
|
|
Hells Kitchen Enforcer
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 655
|
|
Interesting argument. (I see that you are crowding the net) Expect reply on the morrow.
.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:56 pm
|
|
|
Rambler
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1690
Location: Misourri
|
|
Kewl. (Bah. I was just returning your serve) I'm looking forward to it.
_________________
There are three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:05 pm
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
| irritus wrote: |
| Eh? No I didn't. I pointed out you could never hope to prove your side. It's not because of the limitations of being online, it's because the evidence doesn't exist. |
That's what a balistic arguement is, one that can't be proven or disproven.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:15 pm
|
|
|
Hells Kitchen Enforcer
Joined: 16 Feb 2005
Posts: 655
|
|
Please excuse the tardiness of my reply. I was attempting to post this Friday afternoon when some sort of server error kicked me overboard, and I could not log into FW again because I was shown as still logged in. Frustrating really. (Unstructured_Testibag, feel completely at ease to consider me an idiot for the amount of time that has passed prior to the posting of this response)
As stated previously, it is my contention that guilt is generated by event, rather than existing prior to the event. Further. I contend that humans are born with the requisite emotional capacity enabling the guilt response to negative internal/thought and external/deed, as per definition of guilt 3, and to perceived guilt as per definitions 4 and 5 listed below. Beyond that, a person cannot experience guilt as per definition 3 prior to both the guilt incurring event itself, and awareness/recognition of corporeal guilt. Simply stated, corporeal guilt cannot precede the corporeal guilt incurring event, and incorporeal guilt cannot precede awareness of corporeal quilt incurred through thought and/or deed.
For the sake of simplicity, I will use the definitions that have been introduced as accepted by academic men throughout the discussion.
| Theognome, of the accepted definitions of guilt, wrote: |
1. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense.
2. Guilty conduct; sin.
3. Remorseful awareness of having done something wrong.
4. Self-reproach for supposed inadequacy or wrongdoing.
5. Feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy: morbid self-reproach often manifest in marked preoccupation with the moral correctness of one's behavior <aggressive responses originating in inner guilt and uncertainty>
6. To make someone feel guilty, esp. in hopes of getting them to do something. |
Definitions 1 and 2 refer to the actual guilt incurred by commission/omission of an act constituting an offense for which a person may be held liable, to whatever degree. These definitions are corporeal, physical.
Definition 3 refers to the emotive response to corporeal act. This definition is an incorporeal, emotional response to definitions 1 and/or 2.
Definitions 4 and 5 have broader application in that they may or may not be related to specific actions. These definitions are incorporeal, emotional.
Definition 6 is an action in and of itself. This definition is corporeal, physical.
Supporting peripheral arguments having been laid down; for the foundation of my position I offer two key premises:
Premise 1.
In order for guilt as per definitions 1 and 2 to be present, an action constituting an offense has to take place. If a person has never lied, that person cannot be guilty of telling lies.
Premise 2.
In order for guilt as per definition 3 to be present, an action constituting an offense has to take place and the offender must know that said action was taken, as well as having awareness that said action was indeed an offense. If a person makes an erroneous statement without any knowledge that the statement was erroneous, that person will not experience any guilt for telling a lie.
Premise 1 needs little in the way of proof for validity. A person is not a robber until committing a robbery, not a thief until committing a theft, not a forger until committing forgery, etc.
Premise 2 appears somewhat more difficult to prove incontrovertibly, however given that corporeal guilt cannot be incurred unless and until a transgression has been committed, and definition 3 explains guilt as response to prior, (even if immediately so), wrong action, (remorseful awareness of having done something wrong) it is an entirely reasonable assumption that guilt cannot be experienced as emotion unless and until guilt has been incurred, whether by thought or deed. Further, by the very definition, (remorseful awareness of having done something wrong), guilt cannot be present unless and until there is recognition of wrongdoing. Indeed this reasoning is sound enough to stand on its own merit, with the burden of disproof the responsibility of the opposition. (A scenario based upon this reasoning, along with the original premise example, is later presented which affords opportunity for rebuttal)
| Theognome wrote: |
theory: If guilt is a natural condition, then the event in the premise example can serve to demonstrate and align guilt rather than create it. For example:
1. Person A is born with instinctive knowledge of guilt.
2. Person A breaks a Law.
3. Person A experiences guilt.
4. Person A may or may not be aware of guilt. |
This begs examination.
If guilt is a natural part of the human condition, and the human condition is that condition which is inherent to humanity as whole, then it cannot be predicated upon region, religion, (negating for the purposes of this argument, guilt definition 2b), culture, or other environmental factors; it must be an inherent universal experience.
Example 1. In order for person A to be born with an instinctive knowledge of guilt, that person must also be born not only with an instinctive knowledge of right and wrong, (for guilt as defined is predicated upon real or imagined wrongdoing), but with an instinctive knowledge of what differentiates right from wrong as well.
Let us take this thinking a step farther. Why should guilt be examined in a void, that is to say, why do we not experience the complete range of emotion in the manner so described? According to the argument presented, we should be happy before we are aware of reason to be happy, sad before we are aware of reason to be sad, etc, and all of our responses should be the same due to the universal nature of that which is instinctive.
| Theognome wrote: |
| C1 Experience of guilt is not dependent upon the awareness of guilt. |
I find that I must disagree beyond even the idea of the capacity to experience guilt as part of the human condition being equated with an instinctive knowledge of guilt. Consider the following scenario.
Person A drives out to the dock to meet his wife who is arriving by boat. In the course of parking this car, he backs onto and flattens an air hose that leads from an air pump to a diver working to salvage a wrecked boat that has sank, some 25 feet under the water. The diver has no air supply due to the collapsed air line, and dies of asphyxiation before he can extricate himself from the wreck and make his way to the surface. Person A meets his wife, escorts her back to the car and drives away, completely oblivious to the plight of the diver or even to the presence of the air hose.
Person A has directly caused the death of another, incurring guilt as per definitions 1 and 2, yet has no knowledge of this fact. If, as has have proposed, the experiencing of guilt as per definition 3 is not dependent upon the awareness of guilt, exactly how does Person A experience guilt for his part in what has just occurred prior to any revelation of corporeal guilt?
Concerning the original scenario offered:
| Theognome wrote: |
| Father Phondlekiddi strokes Dicky. Mr. Thimbledik saw this happen and ran away. None of the participants mention the incident again. |
Although it is a simple matter to explain Dicky’s guilt as per definitions 4 and 5 after the fact. I am unclear on exactly how he is guilty prior to event. Please explain precisely how Dicky is guilty of involvement in his own sexual assault before it occurs, and under which definitions this guilt would fall.
________________________________________________________________________
Encountering some counterpoints:
| Theognome wrote: |
| Indeed, there are some criminals on death row who claim to have no guilt, but I don't acknowledge such bravado. Guilt is part of the human condition in one form or another, whether acquired by our actions or our inactions. |
| In an addendum to which I wrote: |
| ...the example of apparent lack of inmate guilt is readily explainable through neutralization, that is, the inmate will experience guilt only in cases where it cannot be neutralized internally for each manefestation...the guilt is of course still there albeit unrecognized as such. |
| Returning to the inmate example, Theognome wrote: |
| Your addendum assumes the creation of guilt vice its pre-existance, hence the reference of experience. However, experience of a phenomenon does not in and of itself equal existance of a phenomenon. The prisoner who cries "I have no guilt!" was still found guilty by a jury of his peers, even though he didn't experience it as a personal revelation. If the guilt is based merely on the prisoner's experience, the jury would be required to find him innocent. |
I feel that this misrepresents both sides of the discussion. In not acknowledging the alleged bravado of the convict who claims to no guilt, the use of the word bravado indicates that the guilt in question is internal, falling under definition 3, possibly 4 and 5. Bravado is hardly required to protest corporeal innocence under definitions 1 and 2, by which definitions a jury or peers must consider a case of law. Beyond the confusion of argument through the mixing of definitions, the wording of the original statement, “Guilt is a part of the human condition in one form or another, whether acquired by our actions or our inactions”, appears to contradict the position being argued. If the guilt was there all along, it would hardly need to be acquired through action or inaction. “If the guilt is based merely on the prisoner's experience, the jury would be required to find him innocent.” That is not very far from truth when describing the insanity defense.
A mother premeditates then purposely and willfully drowns all 5 of her children. This mother confesses to the premeditation and execution of the action. Said mother is found to be not guilty of the action in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the fact of the action. How? Because the mother is deemed to have been incapable of normal, rational thought during the event. The condition and experience of the mother, (which can be corresponded to definitions 3, 4, and 5) completely negates definitions 1 and 2. I am not arguing that this is a common or correct verdict, I am pointing out that it does occur.
_______________________________________________________________________
| Where I wrote: |
6 Guilt is indeed a part of the human condition; it is in the recognition and acknowledgement of guilt that differentiation may be observed. 7 Guilt must first be recognized, and then acknowledged, before it can be experienced. 8 With lack of recognition, such as in the case of the true reprobate or one who is simply unaware of wrongdoing, there can be no acknowledgement and experience of guilt. 9 With recognition comes acknowledgement; however it is in the form this acknowledgement takes that we find the most disparate response. 10 Denial, transferral, rationalization, and neutralization are the most common forms of guilt acknowledgment aimed at alleviating responsibility as reason for guilt, hence the necessity of experiencing guilt.
11 Denial: “I did nothing wrong.” 12 There was no action taken. 13 No one is to blame
14 Transferral: “He/they is/are responsible for what I did” How a persons past interactions with others directly affect actions taken. 15 Someone else is to blame.
16 Rationalization: “I did what I did because...” Facts are distorted in order to make actions taken appear reasonable in the context of circumstance. 17 Circumstances are to blame.
18 Neutralization: “I was forced to do what I did” Coercion to explain the actions taken. 19 Whatever forced the action is to blame.
20 Through the use of these mechanisms of guilt acknowledgement via non-acknowledgement, a person will experience guilt ONLY if they are not able to diffuse personal responsibility each time recognition occurs. 21 The person using such methods will not actually experience sensation of guilt as they are never to blame. 22 Nevertheless the guilt remains. |
| Theognome wrote: |
| If we exchange experience for awareness of, then the model will fall within the premise. Sorry, E-male, but with the premise hinged upon experience, it was not good argumentation to use experience and awareness interchangeably. |
My apologies if the sequencing of the guilt response appeared vague enough to suggest interchangeability between the awareness of guilt and experiencing guilt, as it was in fact the exact opposite that I proposed. “7 Guilt must first be recognized, and then acknowledged, [that is to say there must be awareness] before it can be experienced. 8 With lack of recognition, such as in the case of the true reprobate or one who is simply unaware of wrongdoing, there can be no acknowledgement and experience of guilt.”
________________________________________________________________________
| Where I wrote: |
| 4 Beyond the incident in question, Dicky and Mr. Thimbledik share a measure of guilt for any and all subsequent strokings of others committed by Father Phondlekiddi, due to their silence after the fact. |
| Theognome wrote: |
| Sentence 4 I hold as invalid, as it is an extrapolation of future particular actions not presented in the defined example, and thus is not directly based on the premise situation. |
Indeed. I find the dismissal rather odd as this was the one statement which could possibly support the idea of guilt prior to event through conscience objection. I suppose there could be room for a definition of conscience objection prior to the fact as a form of prophylactic guilt...but I will not be the one to make it.
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:52 pm
|
|
|
Rambler
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1690
Location: Misourri
|
|
Well, E-male, Thanks for the post! I must admit that I had a bad flu at the moment, so I'm gonna print this out and mull it over some chicken soup. Until then, Sah!
_________________
There are three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:40 pm
|
|
|
Rambler
Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 1690
Location: Misourri
|
|
Ahhh... This is going to be a fun thread indeed...
...Well, you have certainly put your best foot forward, Sir. And, I can see that you were kind enough to grant me some room for rebuttal snicker
I'm not going to church tomorrow, as I don't wish to infect the other congregates. I'll reply then. Ciao!
_________________
There are three kinds of people: Those who can count, and those who can't. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:23 pm
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
You always did need several days to think stuff up.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:47 pm
|
|
|
Abusive Admin
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude
|
|
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| irritus wrote: |
| Eh? No I didn't. I pointed out you could never hope to prove your side. It's not because of the limitations of being online, it's because the evidence doesn't exist. |
That's what a balistic arguement is, one that can't be proven or disproven. |
No, what you committed was an argument to ignorance. Claiming that doing it back to you is a "ballistic argument" in itself is a red herring.
_________________
Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:55 pm
|
|
|
The Voice of Reason
Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 1368
|
|
There's enough "evidence" about what I was saying that a reasonable person would have to doubt john paul II's holiness. Not absolute proof, but enough, so no.
_________________
I've got good news:
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by NOT BUYING ANY. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:00 pm
|
|
|
Abusive Admin
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude
|
|
I should ellaborate. In a debate, you're required to prove your side. Otherwise all you're doing is spouting conjecture. Demanding you actually bother supporting your argument isn't a clever ruse, it's pointing out a requirement. Since you have only conjecture and we both know it, you cannot hope to prove the Pope knew enough to act. Hence point 1.
You also can't prove he didn't do enough. At most you can say, "Oh, well if he did his job it wouldn't keep happenning." This argument will last you about 3 seconds before someone points out you cannot judge someone's efforts by their results. You'll play a semantics game until it's been pointed out half a dozen times that if one person is beaten to death by a mob, it's not the victim's fault for "not trying hard enough." Hence point 2.
Then you'll go on to completely ignore the fact you have absolutely nothing to back up your side and claim that morality, which is entirely subjective, can be narrowly defined. Which is what I brought up in point 3. The most you can hope for is a stalemate, however since you're hiding behind any demand you prove your side of this argument is anything more than bigotry-inspired defamation, that is not going to happen either.
You cannot win, as I have shown, because you're debating a subjective matter objectively, and you refuse to prove anything you say.
_________________
Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List |
|
|
|
|
|
| Posted:
Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:02 pm
|
|
|
Abusive Admin
Joined: 14 Jan 2005
Posts: 6059
Location: The Archive of Fortitude
|
|
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| There's enough "evidence" about what I was saying that a reasonable person would have to doubt john paul II's holiness. Not absolute proof, but enough, so no. |
Doubt? The only "evidence" you've shown indicated that there was corruption in the ranks, not that it went to the top. You certainly didn't prove your initial stance:
| Anarchy_Balsac wrote: |
| I will say this, I'm glad the old pope is dead and died horribly. It's about fucking time, he sat on the papal seat for years knowlingly allowing kiddy raper preists to get away with it, only when it was brought to the attention of the public did that asshole even bother to say anything. Even then saying was all he did, and it was to cover his ass anyway, yet many many idiots still looked up to him as a man of god despite this. |
_________________
Tireless Rebutter / Archivist
The Grand Suggestion List |
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 6 Hours |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
