Did I commit a fallacy?

Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:42 pm

***Hypothetical Debate***

Argument : "Christianity is immoral."

Debators : Me v.s. Christian

Me : I quote Isaiah 13 : 15-18. as proof that Christianity is immoral and condones child killing.

Christian : *Tries to justify Bible verse, God's words and actions of child killing.*

(At this point is it a strawman for me to point out that he is proving my point that Christianity is immoral?)

Me: You prove my point perfectly. What you are saying is proof that Christianity is immoral. Do you even realise that you are trying to JUSTIFY child murder?

( Is the above thing I just said a strawman? )

Resident Joined: Jan 31, 2005 Posts: 372 Location: Canada

I wouldn't think so.

If he is trying to justify the quote then he is trying to make an excuse for child murder. (And rape and genocide as well.) That is his position. That is what it means.

On the other hand if he tries to dismiss the quote by pointing out that it is from the old testament or something like that, then it would be a strawman, because he isn't trying to make an excuse for murder.

Another example is the argument that talks about a potter and that he can do what he wants with the clay pot. Besides being a false analogy, it is also an attempted to justify murder and other atrocities. It is not a strawman to point that out.

Graduate Thinker Joined: Jan 11, 2006 Posts: 713

This depends on whether the Christian considers child murder to be immoral, even if is something sanctioned by the fictional God character. In either case, yes, I'd say child murder is reprehensible.

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 4:10 am

A Strawman requires an over simplification and misrepresentation of the opposition. I don't see that, I see a slam dunk!

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 3:02 pm

Friend wrote:

This depends on whether the Christian considers child murder to be immoral, even if is something sanctioned by the fictional God character. In either case, yes, I'd say child murder is reprehensible.

Is child murder more or less wrong than murdering an adult?

Just a question....

I've always thought to myself when someone gets shot on TV - "That guy has been working on his life for llike 35 years and he just ruined all his hard work right there in an instant."

Sure killing a child is preventing all the possible good deeds the child COULD have done in the future...but killing an adult is like watching someone put a puzzle together for 30 years and then knocking it to the floor and dashing it to pieces...both seem pretty wrong to me.

Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:18 pm

bronco2 wrote:

Sure killing a child is preventing all the possible good deeds the child COULD have done in the future...but killing an adult is like watching someone put a puzzle together for 30 years and then knocking it to the floor and dashing it to pieces...both seem pretty wrong to me.

I think it boils down to two things: child's innocence and defenselessness.
The innocence is arguable as children can be among the sickest of sadists, tough I think the point is they haven't yet learned what's good and what's bad, so even if they have done something wrong people always say "come on, they're just children".
The defenselessness is preety clear. I'm always pretty pissed when I see someone stronger picking on someone weaker. The greater the disproportion of strength the more pissed I am.
If I saw an adult picking on a child, I'd smack the hell out of him without asking any questions.

So tie the defenslessness to the innocence and you'll have a pretty clear idea of how unbelievably super pissed I am when I hear of someone killing or hurting a child.

So, that's one way to look at it.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore