Just or Merciful

[Moral Orel]

You wish. Everyone knows a dictionary is more authoritative about common use than merely vague appeals to "common usage."

You said to use common usage, so that's what I stated. You said I needed to use the dictionary too, so I pointed out that I have already been using the dictionary.

voluntary ≠ paid

False. Refer to the definition already cited.

So "cake" is morally unjust? RGB codes are unjust? Vinyl records are unjust? I can't believe I'm even having this discussion. You're literally arguing that everything in the entire universe that is "not justice" is bad. Permission to lol hysterically, please.

You are still misquoting yourself. You keep acting as though this is true:

I deliberately said "not justice."

Even though I've already shown you this:

Because mercy, by definition, is not just

So why are you still repeating the same false claim after being shown to be wrong? You stated "not just". The definition of "unjust" is "not just" as shown by the definition I cited.

There is nothing about the definition of cake, RGB codes, and vinyl records that makes them unjust. Mercy is by definition undeserved, and therefore is by definition unjust.

^ Bare assertion without support.

I am responding directly to your statements. That is the support for the fact that I am paying attention.

 

[Paulomycin]

You said to use common usage, so that's what I stated. You said I needed to use the dictionary too, so I pointed out that I have already been using the dictionary.

A dictionary is a standard of accuracy for common usage, yes. Problem???

False. Refer to the definition already cited.

No. Volunteers are not paid. Just admit you contradicted yourself.

So why are you still repeating the same false claim after being shown to be wrong? You stated "not just". The definition of "unjust" is "not just" as shown by the definition I cited.

Because you're just equivocating "not just," and it took me some time to realize my mistake in taking your initial equivocation in good faith. Sometimes I like to verify things before settling on the fact that, yes, you are pushing a fallacy of equivocation on "not just" or "unjust."

There is nothing about the definition of cake, RGB codes, and vinyl records that makes them unjust.

Every-single-one of these is an example of things that are literally not justice.

I am responding directly to your statements. That is the support for the fact that I am paying attention.

A mere direct response is not necessarily supported. You clearly stated, "false" without explaining why it's false. Your subjective assertion doesn't necessarily make anything an objective falsehood. Not until you actually demonstrate it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I already addressed this in #127 and you ignored it.

I guess this is what you are referring to?

MOrel: "Yes, they are absolved without receiving punishment. The punishment happened to someone who didn't deserve to be punished. So that's double not practicing justice."

MarkQ: Haha! I'd like to see you try to tell Christ that God was in some way not just!

MOrel: "Okay, so your retort is that he can do one at one time and one at a different time; and he can do one for one person and one to a different person. They can't be done at the same time to the same person, however. Since this inconsistency has nothing to do with people earning it or being owed or being deserving, is being inconsistent just? If so, how so?"

MarkQ: What inconsistency? I see no inconsistency, nor do I see how God ever does anything that can be called injustice. Nevertheless, since you insist on parsing my words, redefining what I meant, restating my words in your terms etc etc, according to your current bent, I will leave this alone.

 

[Moral Orel]

A dictionary is a standard of accuracy for common usage, yes. Problem???

Of course there isn't a problem. That's what I said. You said common usage first. Then you said to use a dictionary too. So I pointed out that a dictionary describes common usage. You claimed I didn't want to use the dictionary. I pointed out that I have been using the dictionary and it's proving useful. Now you've come back to say that a dictionary describes common usage which is what I said in the first place. See? I'm reading your posts.

No. Volunteers are not paid. Just admit you contradicted yourself.

No. You said that it must be "voluntary". The definition of "voluntary" as already cited is "from one's own choice or consent". The definition is not "without being paid". Because I am not a slave, I go to work voluntarily because I am paid.

The motivation a person has for making a free choice to do something is irrelevant to the fact that someone who does deserve punishment doesn't get punished because someone who doesn't deserve punishment does get punished. The definition of "justice" already cited and agreed to by you shows that this is unjust. There is nothing in the definition of "justice" that allows for this even if the person does so for free.

Because you're just equivocating "not just," and it took me some time to realize my mistake in taking your initial equivocation in good faith. Sometimes I like to verify things before settling on the fact that, yes, you are pushing a fallacy of equivocation on "not just" or "unjust."

False. The definition of "unjust" is "not just". As per your rules, using the dictionary prevents equivocation. So citing the dictionary in this instance proves that it is not an equivocation to use "not just" and "unjust" interchangeably.

Every-single-one of these is an example of things that are literally not justice.

We are talking about you claiming something is "not just". We are not talking about you claiming something is "not justice".

A mere direct response is not necessarily supported. You clearly stated, "false" without explaining why it's false. Your subjective assertion doesn't necessarily make anything an objective falsehood. Not until you actually demonstrate it.

I've been demonstrating it.

 

[Paulomycin]

MarkQ: What inconsistency? I see no inconsistency, nor do I see how God ever does anything that can be called injustice. Nevertheless, since you insist on parsing my words, redefining what I meant, restating my words in your terms etc etc, according to your current bent, I will leave this alone.

I noticed the same pattern here.

 

[Paulomycin]

No. You said that it must be "voluntary". The definition of "voluntary" as already cited is "from one's own choice or consent". The definition is not "without being paid". Because I am not a slave, I got to work voluntarily because I am paid.

volunteer
[ˌvälənˈtir]
NOUN

1. a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.
   
   - Oxford

False. The definition of "unjust" is "not just".

And so you conclude that everything "not just" = "unjust" or "injustice."

 

[Moral Orel]

MOrel: "Yes, they are absolved without receiving punishment. The punishment happened to someone who didn't deserve to be punished. So that's double not practicing justice."

MarkQ: Haha! I'd like to see you try to tell Christ that God was in some way not just!

MOrel: "Okay, so your retort is that he can do one at one time and one at a different time; and he can do one for one person and one to a different person. They can't be done at the same time to the same person, however. Since this inconsistency has nothing to do with people earning it or being owed or being deserving, is being inconsistent just? If so, how so?"

MarkQ: What inconsistency? I see no inconsistency, nor do I see how God ever does anything that can be called injustice. Nevertheless, since you insist on parsing my words, redefining what I meant, restating my words in your terms etc etc, according to your current bent, I will leave this alone.

This is not accurate. You are attributing my responses to the wrong portions of your posts.

Here is the section of you I quoted:

Of course they are "in direct contrast", regardless of how awkward that sounds to say; they do by definition have a contrast. They don't, however, contradict. God can do both, but to show mercy to some he had to punish Christ.

Bolding is my emphasis. And here is my response to that quote.

Okay, so your retort is that he can do one at one time and one at a different time; and he can do one for one person and one to a different person. They can't be done at the same time to the same person, however. Since this inconsistency has nothing to do with people earning it or being owed or being deserving, is being inconsistent just? If so, how so?

It is entirely accurate. "Some" people get justice and "some" people get mercy. You also said this:

The English is pretty clear, though. If I were to say, God has justice and mercy on Ninevah, it would be both. His justice was delayed, because of his mercy. Nevertheless, we given no indication that we will be seeing Ninevites in Heaven. There is no contradiction.

Bolding is my emphasis. So at one time people receive mercy and at another time they receive justice.

It is inconsistent to treat some people based on what they deserve, and to treat other people without considering what they deserve.

 

[Moral Orel]

volunteer
[ˌvälənˈtir]
NOUN

1. a person who freely offers to take part in an enterprise or undertake a task.
   
   - Oxford

You didn't use the word "volunteer" you used the word "voluntary" so this definition does not apply to the conversation.

And so you conclude that everything "not just" = "unjust" or "injustice."

Everything that "is by definition not just" is unjust.

 

[Paulomycin]

You didn't use the word "volunteer" you used the word "voluntary" so this definition does not apply to the conversation.

You cannot argue that Jesus wasn't a volunteer in the strict definition of the term.

Everything that "is by definition not just" is unjust.

Then "cake, RGB codes, vinyl records, calfskin, opera, and pathos" are unjust.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is inconsistent to treat some people based on what they deserve, and to treat other people without considering what they deserve.

Inconsistent with what? I'm beginning to think you want justice to equal fairness. Fairness is, we all pay our sins (in which case there was no reason to create us.)

 

[Moral Orel]

You cannot argue that Jesus wasn't a volunteer in the strict definition of the term.

I never said he wasn't. I said you didn't use the word "volunteer" you used the word "voluntary".

Then "cake, RGB codes, vinyl records, calfskin, opera, and pathos" are unjust.

There's nothing in the definition of those things that makes them not just. Mercy is undeserved. Justice is about what you deserve.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You cannot argue that Jesus wasn't a volunteer in the strict definition of the term.



Then "cake, RGB codes, vinyl records, calfskin, opera, and pathos" are unjust.

Well, now, that is 'just' beautiful !

 

[Moral Orel]

Inconsistent with what?

Inconsistent with justice. Some people get justice, some people do not.

I'm beginning to think you want justice to equal fairness.

I haven't said anything about what I want, only what things are or are not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Inconsistent with justice. Some people get justice, some people do not.

I haven't said anything about what I want, only what things are or are not.

It comes to me maybe I should ask you if you see us as mere individuals when in Heaven.

 

[Moral Orel]

It comes to me maybe I should ask you if you see us as mere individuals when in Heaven.

I don't know.

 

[Paulomycin]

I never said he wasn't.

Then you're admitting Jesus as a volunteer, and not paid, so there goes your analogy. Thank you.

There's nothing in the definition of those things that makes them not just.

They are, in and of themselves not justice. Some are not abstract. Some are abstract, but have nothing to do with moral justice itself.

Mercy is undeserved. Justice is about what you deserve.

Correct. That was my argument this entire time. Problem?

 

[Paulomycin]

I haven't said anything about what I want, only what things are or are not.

Right. You have no real thesis to the contrary at all, you're just chasing around trying to find a petty "gotcha."

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know.

Thank you.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then you're admitting Jesus as a volunteer, and not paid, so there goes your analogy. Thank you.

His status as an unpaid volunteer is irrelevant. His name starts with "J" and that is irrelevant too. If you want to claim that volunteer status is pertinent to the analogy, then prove it. What is pertinent to the analogy is what is deserved because justice is about what is deserved.

They are, in and of themselves not justice. Some are not abstract. Some are abstract, but have nothing to do with moral justice itself.

You didn't say "not justice" you said "not just".

Correct. That was my argument this entire time. Problem?

Nope. Glad we can agree that mercy is unjust.

Right. You have no real thesis to the contrary at all, you're just chasing around trying to find a petty "gotcha."

False. What I personally want is not part of the conversation.

 

[Paulomycin]

His status as an unpaid volunteer is irrelevant. His name starts with "J" and that is irrelevant too. If you want to claim that volunteer status is pertinent to the analogy, then prove it. What is pertinent to the analogy is what is deserved because justice is about what is deserved.

Then make another analogy without "paying" someone to go to jail for you. Simple.

You didn't say "not justice" you said "not just".

Same dif.

Nope. Glad we can agree that mercy is unjust.

Except when you're equivocating it to push an agenda.

What I personally want is not part of the conversation.

Oh. Then you have no rational goal here at all, then.