Spirituality
07 Feb 12
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're not really being coherent . Did soldiers fighting in the European theatre in WW2 "neglect" their duty to fight by not also fighting in the Pacific theatre at the same time? Are you saying that all the people in Ethiopia "neglected" divegeester's wife recently? Have I "neglected" someone in your family recently? In order to have your message board fun - which I have enjoyed by the way - it seems you have found it necessary to rinse the word "neglect" of its practical and useful meaning. This may be ok for a bit of joshing around at a dinner party or at the water cooler, but it does not address the issue of rights and wrongs of someone like robbie letting someone die needlessly because he is superstitious.
Does it matter? Are you claiming to have taken care of every African person? Or are you stalling because you don't want to answer the question?
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFYou don't like the word neglect? See if you can rephrase it then. But I am not being incoherent. You know perfectly well what I mean. You just don't like where its going.
You're not really being coherent.
This may be ok for a bit of joshing around at a dinner party or at the water cooler, but it does not address the issue of rights and wrongs of someone like robbie letting someone die needlessly because he is superstitious.
I think the real problem here is you are so terrified of the possibility that Robbies actions may be justified that you are resisting anything I say regardless of how ridiculous you get in the process. Did I say that what I asked addresses Robbies actions? No. You keep jumping two steps ahead of me, getting scared of what you see, then refusing to answer my questions or playing dumb to try and avoid it.
So, would you agree with the following:
1. There exists at least one person in Africa who will die if you do not help him.
2. You will not help him.
3. You feel morally justified (not morally wrong) about your not helping him.
Now lets ask why. What circumstances would give you good reasons for not helping such a person?
1. You don't know about it?
2. There are too many such people and you cant help them all?
3. Its too expensive (in terms of money / time / effort) to help?
4. You suggest some.
11 Feb 12
At this point I must point out a fairly serious issue relating to the OP. The OP is not about a moral question of "should I help my fellow man". Its about "should I help a loved one" which is quite a different thing altogether. You don't help loved ones for moral reasons, you help them because you love them.
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think the real problem here is you are so terrified of the possibility that Robbies actions may be justified that you are resisting anything I say regardless of how ridiculous you get in the process.
I don't think robbie's actions are justified. I am not "terrified" of anything. You can disagree all you want, it doesn't "terrify" me at all. Have you been trying to persuade me that his actions are justified? No wonder you have been incoherent.
There exists at least one person in Africa who will die if you do not help him.
I don't think so. Which person did you have in mind? I haven't been "neglecting" people at all. I know you are seeking to make light of both what I do where I live but I think your use of the word "neglect" is absurd.
2. You will not help him.
3. You feel morally justified (not morally wrong) about your not helping him.
Who haven't I helped? Can you be specific? I spend all my time helping people, either directly or indirectly, so who is you feel I have "neglected"?
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy not just tell us where moral responsibility starts and ends for you? I have asked this about 3 or 4 times now but if you don't want to answer, that's ok by me.
At this point I must point out a fairly serious issue relating to the OP. The OP is not about a moral question of "should I help my fellow man". Its about "should I help a loved one" which is quite a different thing altogether. You don't help loved ones for moral reasons, you help them because you love them.
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich person?
Now lets ask why. What circumstances would give you good reasons for not helping such a person?
1. You don't know about it?
2. There are too many such people and you cant help them all?
3. Its too expensive (in terms of money / time / effort) to help?
4. You suggest some.
I have and do make a contribution to the fight against poverty in Africa. Why do you keep suggesting I don't (my attempt at facetious humour aside)?
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadHere's where it's going: somewhere in the U.K. yesterday, some parent left their young kids alone, "neglected" them, left them to fend for themselves, for a whole evening, while they went out to do something. Did I also "neglect" those kids because I did not go to the U.K. - for the evening - and look after the kids till their parent came home?
You don't like the word neglect? See if you can rephrase it then. But I am not being incoherent. You know perfectly well what I mean. You just don't like where its going.
I think you are just trying wordplay, twhitehead, in order to create a 'thought game' that is based on absurdity. I don't think your line of question sheds anything other than pedantic, hypothetical, slightly anally retentive [if you'll pardon me for saying so] and obtuse light upon the moral issue that's being discussed.
I have been quite unequivocal about what I see as the moral issues being surrounding the OP's hypothetical scenario about transfusion, a life that can be saved, and robbie's superstition. You have not really contributed anything of substance to the debate yet. Why not just tell us where moral responsibility starts and ends for you in the case that is being discussed?
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFThen why all the avoidance? Why the pretense at not understanding? Why did you say "but it does not address the issue of rights and wrongs of someone like robbie letting someone die needlessly because he is superstitious." when it clearly wasn't relevant? And no, I am not being incoherent, that is just you trying to avoid answering difficult questions. So if you are not terrified of anything, why your ridiculous behavior?
I don't think robbie's actions are justified. I am not "terrified" of anything. You can disagree all you want, it doesn't "terrify" me at all. Have you been trying to persuade me that his actions are justified? No wonder you have been incoherent.
[i]There exists at least one person in Africa who will die if you do not help him.[/]
I don't think so.
Stop acting stupid, its getting tiring.
I know you are seeking to make light of both what I do where I live but I think your use of the word "neglect" is absurd.
When did I even suggest that I am making light of what you do or where you live? Have I mentioned either? I have already conceded that 'neglect' might be the wrong word and have welcomed a replacement and avoided using it in my latest post.
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFAnd you are so desperate to get two steps ahead of me and read between the lines that you seem incapable of reading what I actually write.
I think you are just trying wordplay, twhitehead, in order to create a 'thought game' that is based on absurdity. I don't think your line of question sheds anything other than pedantic, hypothetical, slightly anally retentive [if you'll pardon me for saying so] and obtuse light upon the moral issue that's being discussed.
I have been quite unequivocal about what I see as the moral issues being surrounding the OP's hypothetical scenario about transfusion, a life that can be saved, and robbie's superstition.
Once again, the OP is decidedly not hypothetical. The thread title tells you quite clearly that it is "real life".
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFI have answered several times but you are not listening. You are too busy reading between the lines. Read what I actually write for a change.
Why not just tell us where moral responsibility starts and ends for you? I have asked this about 3 or 4 times now but if you don't want to answer, that's ok by me.
11 Feb 12
Originally posted by FMFI keep suggesting you don't because you said you didn't. This is, I believe the first time you have said you did. How was I to know that your previous claims were "facetious humour "? Must I ignore all your claims from now on as they too might be "facetious humour" which you will change at some later date?
I have and do make a contribution to the fight against poverty in Africa. Why do you keep suggesting I don't (my attempt at facetious humour aside)?
The fact remains however that you are not helping all Africans. And no, I do not need to know anything about you to know this.