Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Please to produce the proof, then?
|
Vivisectus, he gave his observations which hold. We have to have a justification to hurt or kill others. Without one of those justifications we cannot gain satisfaction in choosing this option as the preferable choice. Be more patient before rushing to judgment! |
No, in your book the narrator says that he observed something. In other words, he claimed conscience works a certain way. And then promised "undeniable evidence", which never appears.
I could say "I have observed, thought and read many books, and I have spotted a pattern in human behavior and history: all bad deeds are caused by the color blue!"
You would say "That is a bold claim. Can you prove it?"
If I were you, I would then say airily that I gave my observations and they hold, that blue causes bad thoughts which lead to bad deeds, and that you should be patient and not rush to judgement. If you carefully read what I said, you will see that blue causes bad thoughts. Also, this can be tested.
But none of that makes it true. It remains an unsupported claim. The same goes for your book. |
Srsly, this is such a bad analogy that if this is all you have and you believe this proves Lessans wrong, we are done. It can easily be seen that people hurt others for reasons. They don't just grow up and desire to kill. Killers are bred. Remove the causes that lead them to desire to kill, and you don't breed a killer. |
My claim and yours have the same level of supporting evidence, is what I am getting at. I am defending my claim in the exact same way you are defending yours. You are now trying to dismiss that by simply threatening to run away from the discussion, and repeating what you believe. I assume that is because you do not like the fact that there is little difference between my defense of the color blue as the color of evil, and your defense of the central tenet of your book.
Both require some sort of evidence to back them up if we are to feel confident that the claims are correct. Even if scientific evidence is not available, we need
something to make us think this could be what is actually going on, to move it past the stage of a simple claim.
So far, you have not produced anything of the kind: all you have done is point out that sometimes people justify doing bad things (which they would do whether blame and conscience have the relationship you assert they have or not, in the same way that people do bad deeds in the current world, if blue causes it, and also if blue does not cause it) or asked us to simply assume it is correct.