₦airaland Forum

Dtruthspeaker:
At least could i take that your use of the word "humans" also means people, persons, individuals, personalities?

Yes you could.

Although I still accept gifts during Christmas, I don't celebrate the birth of people that never existed, anymore.
Ultimately, I don't have anything to celebrate now.

LordReed:
Yes you could.

Okay!

Therefore, you would not have any objection to any such sufferer taking action and steps towards taking and obtaining a relief?

Dtruthspeaker:
Okay!

Therefore, you would not have any objection to any such sufferer taking action and steps towards taking and obtaining a relief?

No I won't have an objection.

LordReed:
No I won't have an objection.

Therefore, you would agree that it can not be wrong for a person to take steps towards obtaining relief from the offender who caused him harm and pain?

Dtruthspeaker:
Therefore, you would agree that it can not be wrong for a person to take steps towards obtaining relief from the offender who caused him harm and pain?

Depends on what steps he is taking.

LordReed:
Depends on what steps he is taking.

Interesting! Meaning, you think that a sufferer may be entitled to take some steps and may not have a right or be right to take some other steps?

Dtruthspeaker:
Interesting! Meaning, you think that a sufferer may be entitled to take some steps and may not have a right or be right to take some other steps?

Yeah. You don't use a bomb to kill a mosquito because it bit you.

LordReed:
Yeah. You don't use a bomb to kill a mosquito because it bit you.

Okay, on the face of it, one would feel it is something I would call excess judgment, in that a sufferer has taken more than his due, his Accurate "Pound of Flesh" by the standards of the Shakespearean play Merchant of Venice.

However when considered in the light of the fact that we apply our palms to them, one may still say that such Judgment is still like dropping a bomb on them.

But obviously you would not be objecting if the relief owed is adequate?

Dtruthspeaker:
Okay, on the face of it, one would feel it is something I would call excess judgment, in that a sufferer has taken more than his due, his Accurate "Pound of Flesh" by the standards of the Shakespearean play Merchant of Venice.

However when considered in the light of the fact that we apply our palms to them, one may still say that such Judgment is still like dropping a bomb on them.

But obviously you would not be objecting if the relief owed is adequate?

You are correct, I wouldn't object if the method used for obtaining relief was adequate.

LordReed:
You are correct, I wouldn't object if the method used for obtaining relief was adequate.

Could you share more light as to the adequacy of method to obtain relief vs inadequacy of method?

Dtruthspeaker:
I know that you are a very intelligent person.

He's just a snake like the devil, worldly wise. Heavenly foolish.

LordReed:
Nope. Look at my definition of evil again, it encapsulates all of life and our environment. Evil is not only that which is done against humans.

I am not denying that humans deserve relief from evil, I just wanted you to understand that the question is broad and complex. I can further illustrate it this way, soliders in Sambisa right now are suffering hardship and death to attempt to root out the scourge of Boko Haram. Would you rather their suffering and death stop thereby giving Boko Haram a free hand?

These are not yes or no questions, once again underlining my point that life is too complex to put everything into neat little boxes. We are going to have to strive to find solutions and answers out of the box.

Do you give God more than this box?

Image123:
He's just a snake like the devil, worldly wise. Heavenly foolish.

A well informed person is dangerous both for good purposes and for evil purposes. And I know that all human beings still love that which is Good over and beyond evil, even if they did evil.

If you look at this thread I did call him Satan for I was a little surprised that he, LortReed, loves "Good things", even with all that he says!

And where there is Good, there you find God!

So, it was only natural for me cease hostilities and see if he may realise like Paul, that the good he loves, is God and God has Never Ever done A Wrong Thing, not even once.

And also that he could never validly show that God has ever done a wrong thing!

I believe he actually knows this but... It is his but that I would like to see, for he is quite very knowledgeable but I find it very interesting how a knowledgeable person could be so anti-God.

Hence in the present Spirit of Truth and Rightness and Goodness, I thought it fit to go through his library!

Dtruthspeaker:
Could you share more light as to the adequacy of method to obtain relief vs inadequacy of method?

Just like I pointed out with the mosquito example, there are responses that would become a problem in themselves so in essence and on a basic level, an adequate response is that which is necessary to get relief without creating additional problems.

LordReed:
Just like I pointed out with the mosquito example, there are responses that would become a problem in themselves so in essence and on a basic level, an adequate response is that which is necessary to get relief without creating additional problems.

But from your comment one tends to have the impression that you would also object to the mode of obtaining relief, in saying

" if the method used.."

So, do you also recommend a particular method of relief over and against another method of relief?

Dtruthspeaker:
But from your comment one tends to have the impression that you would also object to the mode of obtaining relief, in saying

" if the method used.."

So, do you also recommend a particular method of relief over and against another method of relief?

The more harm the method does the more likely it is I would reject it. The ideal method should cause the least harm.

LordReed:
The more harm the method does the more likely it is I would reject it. The ideal method should cause the least harm.

Okay, do you know that taking relief from another person is always harmful to that offender, no matter the method applied?

Dtruthspeaker:
Okay, do you know that taking relief from another person is always harmful to that offender, no matter the method applied?

Not always.

Dtruthspeaker:
A well informed person is dangerous both for good purposes and for evil purposes. And I know that all human beings still love that which is Good over and beyond evil, even if they did evil.

If you look at this thread I did call him Satan for I was a little surprised that he, LortReed, loves "Good things", even with all that he says!

And where there is Good, there you find God!

So, it was only natural for me cease hostilities and see if he may realise like Paul, that the good he loves, is God and God has Never Ever done A Wrong Thing, not even once.

And also that he could never validly show that God has ever done a wrong thing!

I believe he actually knows this but... It is his but that I would like to see, for he is quite very knowledgeable but I find it very interesting how a knowledgeable person could be so anti-God.

Hence in the present Spirit of Truth and Rightness and Goodness, I thought it fit to go through his library!

Just remember that he's a snake. If he wasn't a snake, i would not say so.

LordReed:
Not always.

Really, I have never seen anyone taking a remedy from an offender, in which the offender did not suffer a loss or pain or both, so show me.

Image123:
Just remember that he's a snake. If he wasn't a snake, i would not say so.

Thank you for the warning!

Dtruthspeaker:
Really, I have never seen anyone taking a remedy from an offender, in which the offender did not suffer a loss or pain or both, so show me.

Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor.

LordReed:
Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor.

This is not clear enough could you give a normal everyday practical example that exhibits this scene?

Dtruthspeaker:
This is not clear enough could you give a normal everyday practical example that exhibits this scene?

Say an arm robber gains entry into house and starts hitting you asking you bring out your money but you persuade him that there's no money in the house. If the robber decides to leave, you have done him no harm and you are freed from further harm.

LordReed:
Say an arm robber gains entry into house and starts hitting you asking you bring out your money but you persuade him that there's no money in the house. If the robber decides to leave, you have done him no harm and you are freed from further harm.

When you put it this way, then you have moved away from the scope of this discussion which is about taking relief from an offender, which your scenario uphere would not apply nor support your concept of

"Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor."

For it is Outside the Scope of Discussion!

Thus, to put that scenario correctly and Truly, it would go thus;

The armed robber Scared you and Broke your sleep and those of your family members and Broke into your home, Beat you, (not even a little beating,) Caused you Pain, and though he later left empty handed, which is Too Unlikely and thus beyond practicality) he is caught by neighbourhood security, the question here is can he escape being hurt in giving up reliefs to his Victim or Victims?

The True and Practical Answer is "He can never escape being put in pain to give relief to his victims"

Christmas is actually a pagan holiday and has nothing to do with the Bible. It is the holiday of the pagan god Sol Invictus. The Church just claimed that it was the day Jesus was born to conform the pagans to join Christianity. So I wouldn't be surprised if even Atheists celebrate it.

Dtruthspeaker:
When you put it this way, then you have moved away from the scope of this discussion which is about taking relief from an offender, which your scenario uphere would not apply nor support your concept of

"Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor."

For it is Outside the Scope of Discussion!

Thus, to put that scenario correctly and Truly, it would go thus;

The armed robber Scared you and Broke your sleep and those of your family members and Broke into your home, Beat you, (not even a little beating,) Caused you Pain, and though he later left empty handed, which is Too Unlikely and thus beyond practicality) he is caught by neighbourhood security, the question here is can he escape being hurt in giving up reliefs to his Victim or Victims?

The True and Practical Answer is "He can never escape being put in pain to give relief to his victims"

Fa, fa, fa, Foul! You just committed a foul. You asked me to give you a practical scenario but you now changed it to fit your own conclusion. Unacceptable.

LordReed:
Fa, fa, fa, Foul! You just committed a foul. You asked me to give you a practical scenario but you now changed it to fit your own conclusion. Unacceptable.

That is not True, what we have been keeping in view was about the issues surrounding the rightness of a sufferer in obtaining relief from his offender, so your response and mine was always based on coming to an understanding of the proper and right place of the Victim, the offender and the relief obtainable.

As Evidenced here

Re: Why Do Atheist Celebrate Christmas? by LordReed(m): 7:43pm On Dec 28
Dtruthspeaker:


Really, I have never seen anyone taking a remedy from an offender, in which the offender did not suffer a loss or pain or both, so show me.

LordReed:
Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor

Hence when you said
"Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor."

It required practical clarification in line with the subject of Victim, offender and relief which is issue we have been talking about.

Dtruthspeaker:
That is not True, what we have been keeping in view was about the issues surrounding the rightness of a sufferer in obtaining relief from his offender, so your response and mine was always based on coming to an understanding of the proper and right place of the Victim, the offender and the relief obtainable.

Hence when you said
"Persuading your tormentor to free you introduces no harm to the tormentor."

It required practical clarification in line with the subject of Victim, offender and relief which is issue we have been talking about.

I gave you practical clarification but instead decided to appropriate it for your own conclusion. This is not the way.

LordReed:
I gave you practical clarification but instead decided to appropriate it for your own conclusion. This is not the way.

Your clarification departs from the issue of ground which is the Rightness of a Victim to obtain Relief from his offender, which is what we have been discussing until I said

Dtruthspeaker
"Okay, do you know that taking relief from another person is always harmful to that offender, no matter the method applied?"

And you answered

LordReed
"Not always"

Your "Not always" must show a scenario where there is a victim who has suffered harm from an offender, and the victim later has an opportunity to obtain remedy from his offender.

This is why I said you have departed from the issue.

Dtruthspeaker:
Your clarification departs from the issue of ground which is the Rightness of a Victim to obtain Relief from his offender, which is what we have been discussing until I said

Dtruthspeaker
"Okay, do you know that taking relief from another person is always harmful to that offender, no matter the method applied?"

And you answered

LordReed
"Not always"

Your "Not always" must show a scenario where there is a victim who has suffered harm from an offender, and the victim later has an opportunity to obtain remedy from his offender.

This is why I said you have departed from the issue.

I did not depart, I illustrated my point perfectly.