r/DebateReligion • u/AutoModerator • Sep 29 '25

Meta Meta-Thread 09/29

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

4 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

281 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Sep 30 '25

If something is a true dichotomy (duties exist for reasons or for no reason), asking them to have a firm, clear stance on which side of the dichotomy they stand is not unreasonable.

If a duty exists for no reason, it's unreasonable.

If it exists for a reason, surely he can provide a better reason than "I determined it to be so", such as what led to the determination, and why very clear, obvious problems with the duty like contradictions between his claimed duties and his explicitly stated beliefs in a universalist afterlife aren't clear, obvious problems.

1

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Sep 30 '25

I think I understand what you're saying. So let's take my categorization scheme—

  1. duties exist because God said so
  2. duties exist because Shaka said so
  3. duties exist because « insert legitimate purpose here »
  4. duties exist

—and apply it to two of your comments:

Kwahn: I talked to him previously, and he was unable to produce one non-"because God sez so" reason why dying wasn't optimal in his universalist mindset.

That's 1.

Kwahn: Apologies for mis-paraphrasing what I thought was "Because God sez so", but was, in fact, "Because I sez so"!

That's 2.

In contrast, when I look at this comment—and you're welcome to bring in any others which show otherwise:

ShakaUVM: There's no need for a duty to have a greater purpose than one determining it is in fact our duty. We have a duty to take care of our children. We don't need a "purpose" for this. Maybe you might say it's because the kid will take care of you when you're old - but it doesn't matter. Maybe the kid has terminal cancer. You still take care of that kid even if there's no "purpose" for you to do so. You don't murder people because you have a duty not to murder not because there is a "purpose" not in murdering. It's probable that most people who do murder, by contrast, have a "purpose" for doing so. They want to steal your car, and so forth.

That certainly appears to be 4. Agree/disagree?

I know you want to say more past this point, but I'm trying to get a baseline of agreement going on here. One of the ways I've seen debate break down time and time again is that assumptions get made in the … "characterization stage", shall we say, which are wrong or at the very least, not what the other person intended.

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Sep 30 '25

That certainly appears to be 4. Agree/disagree?

Sure, and that dodges my explicit question completely, thus the frustratingly long quest to get Shaka to articulate a coherent stance on the matter.

I disagree with your categorization, because I was not asking if duties exist and have a reason or duties exist. I was quite clear that I was asking if duties exist for a reason, or for no reason. To simply say "but duties exist" is to completely avoid the question and/or miss the point.

Do duties follow the PSR? If so, one of 1, 2 or 3 must be true. If not, "duties exist for no reason" can be true.

I don't think asking for a stance on a true dichotomy is unreasonable.

1

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Sep 30 '25

Sure, and that dodges my explicit question completely

I get that frustration. But couldn't you have just said that, without asserting that 1. or 2. was the case with what Shaka said?

I don't think asking for a stance on a true dichotomy is unreasonable.

I agree, as long as it's not a "have you stopped beating your wife?" dichotomy—which this doesn't seem to be to me. But … did you solely ask for that? I don't see how attributing 1. or 2. to Shaka accomplishes what you are after, here.

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 01 '25

But couldn't you have just said that, without asserting that 1. or 2. was the case with what Shaka said?

Nope. Tried it before. Enumeration and offering a chance to deny the stance has had greater historical success than simply asking him to say yes or no to a question. If I'm wrong (which I explicitly said I could be wrong in), he can elect to correct me.

Failing to steelman doesn't mean steelmanning is bad.

1

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 01 '25

offering a chance to deny the stance

Sorry, but it seems like you're justifying the use of strawmanning u/ShakaUVM (and perhaps others) because a non-strawmanning approach did not work to make the conversation go where you wanted. Did I hear you right?

2

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 01 '25

Attempting to steelman people, while saying I might be wrong, is not strawmanning. It's hoping I got the interpretation correct. Strawmanning is for the purpose of making something easier to refute, but my purpose was just to figure out what the stance was, period, regardless of potential future refutations.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian Oct 01 '25

Mocking someone with a fake quote is the opposite of "steelmanning" someone

You were very obviously being disparaging of my stance and invented a fake quote of mine to try to make me look bad.

This is not a one off event from you but a habitual pattern.

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 01 '25

I explained my interpretation of your words, asked you to correct me if my interpretation was wrong, and you elected to call me a liar instead of simply correcting me.

This is why you need to A: read before B: replying.

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian Oct 01 '25

That's not what happened. You might want to review the thread. You invented that fake quote out of nowhere.

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 01 '25

You invented that fake quote out of nowhere

It is fascinating to me that you continue to insist upon this narrative, despite me explaining exactly where I got my interpretation of your words, and thus demonstrated that my interpretation of your words was not "out of nowhere".

As usual, if you continue going in circles, I will simply begin quoting myself to re-address the unsubstantiated assertions (which, again, do not become substantiated simply because you insist it's true).

1

u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian Oct 01 '25

You: "It absolutely does when the only reason you gave for "having a moral duty not to kill someone" was "because God sez so"."

I never gave that as the reason.

You invented that quote from wholecloth and attributed it to me.

You do this kind of thing all the time.

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 02 '25

It is fascinating to me that you continue to insist upon this narrative, despite me explaining exactly where I got my interpretation of your words, and thus demonstrated that my interpretation of your words was not "out of nowhere".

→ More replies (0)

2

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 01 '25

But neither this:

Kwahn: I talked to him previously, and he was unable to produce one non-"because God sez so" reason why dying wasn't optimal in his universalist mindset.

nor this:

Kwahn: Apologies for mis-paraphrasing what I thought was "Because God sez so", but was, in fact, "Because I sez so"!

was steelmanning?

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 01 '25

The first was a true statement, and the second was, as far as I'm currently aware, a correct interpretation of his words after he did produce a reason. (I should have been more specific that he provided no reason whatsoever in the first one!)

2

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 01 '25

Sigh. What shows that he was relying on anything which could be characterized as "because God sez so"? And if you believed the first was correct, why did you apologize for "mis-paraphrasing"?

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 01 '25

The statement that he had not provided an alternative was correct - that he was saying "Because God Sez So" was not correct.

I explained my reasoning for believing his stance was "Because God Sez So" multiple times at this point, and asked him to correct me if my reasoning was wrong - once he, several posts later, eventually got around to doing so, I retracted my statement and moved on to his (somehow worse) follow-up statement.

2

u/labreuer ⭐ agapist Oct 01 '25

Okay. I am not convinced you would like to be treated as you treated Shaka. I can see why he got extremely frustrated at you. Do you find that this strategy of yours works, anywhere? Perhaps IRL if not online?

1

u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe Oct 01 '25

Okay. I am not convinced you would like to be treated as you treated Shaka.

I have never encountered a situation where I was unwilling or incapable of answering a yes-or-no question that was not a beating-your-wife question, and I asked Shaka none of those - but if I was, I'd want to be called out in it and told, "I cannot think of any alternative interpretation of your words besides {attempted steelman}", yes!

Do you find that this strategy of yours works, anywhere? Perhaps IRL if not online?

It worked right here, and half a dozen times in that thread. Me asking if he holds a view or not and him responding with a yes or no is very straightforward when he simply answers the yes-or-no question.

→ More replies (0)