Just or Merciful

[Moral Orel]

Quote me.

Okay, I mean we just went over this but here ya go. Here's what I said:

Yes, but your claim is that volunteer status must be part of my analogy.

To which you responded:

No, it doesn't have to be at all.

So I don't need to make the person going to prison be a volunteer.

"Paying" doesn't need to be part of your analogy.

It doesn't need to be, but it happens to be. So what?

I'm not exploiting any ambiguity there.

There is no ambiguity. They're entirely different words.

Because pardons and clemency fall under the categories of mercy, and not justice. Are you calling all pardons and clemency unjust?

And now we're back to the beginning. Why isn't mercy a violation of justice? That's what I asked, and all you've done is point out more specific examples of mercy, and then say you proved that they aren't a violation of justice because they're mercy.

So let's look up "injustice":

injustice
noun


in·jus·tice | \ (ˌ)in-ˈjə-stəs \
Definition of injustice


1: absence of justice : violation of right or of the rights of another : UNFAIRNESS
2: an unjust act : WRONG

An act is an injustice if that act is unjust. We've established that mercy is unjust. It's the absence of justice, because justice is folks getting what they deserve, and mercy is folks not getting what they deserve. It isn't fair, which is something that @Mark Quayle pointed out. So in light of the dictionary, which is authoritative according to you, how do you show that mercy is not injustice?

 

[Moral Orel]

Why so?

No, you guys can prove your own claims. It isn't my responsibility to prove you wrong. That's why it's called the "burden" of proof. If someone not getting what they deserve isn't an injustice to you guys, then I have no idea what you think an injustice is.

 

[Paulomycin]

No, you guys can prove your own claims. It isn't my responsibility to prove you wrong. That's why it's called the "burden" of proof. If someone not getting what they deserve isn't an injustice to you guys, then I have no idea what you think an injustice is.

But. . .it's. . .your thread.

 

[Moral Orel]

But. . .it's. . .your thread.

So what? Because it's my thread you get to just make assertions without the burden of proof?

 

[Paulomycin]

So I don't need to make the person going to prison be a volunteer.

Here's my full statement without you quotemining it:

No, it doesn't have to be at all. That's why it benefits me. Volunteer status is not part of your analogy. That's entirely my argument.

That's what makes it non-analogous and contradictory.

There is no ambiguity. They're entirely different words.

Great, then no equivocation on my part.

And now we're back to the beginning. Why isn't mercy a violation of justice?

Because. . .

Mercy - Wikipedia

In a judicial context mercy is often termed "clemency". It is a sovereign prerogative that resides in the executive and is entirely discretionary. John Locke defined it as "the power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it."[5] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explained that "The very nature of clemency is that it is grounded solely in the will of the dispenser of clemency. He need give no reasons for granting it or for denying it."

And you hate that for some strange reason. Your question is like wondering why compassion, forgiveness, benevolence, and kindness even exist to begin with.

An act is an injustice if that act is unjust.

You're equivocating "unjust" again.

So in light of the dictionary, which is authoritative according to you, how do you show that mercy is not injustice?

Wow. So you really believe compassion, forgiveness, benevolence, and kindness are always bad.

 

[Paulomycin]

So what? Because it's my thread you get to just make assertions without the burden of proof?

Why not? You always do.

 

[Moral Orel]

Why not? You always do.

Show me a claim I refused to support.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's what makes it non-analogous and contradictory.

X isn't part of the analogy, therefore the analogy is contradictory. Non-sequitur. The name of the guy going to prison isn't "Jesus" either. If everything matched perfectly, it wouldn't be an analogy. You need to show why the motive is pertinent.

Great, then no equivocation on my part.

No, there just isn't any ambiguity to your equivocation: it's obvious.

Because. . .

Mercy - Wikipedia

In a judicial context mercy is often termed "clemency". It is a sovereign prerogative that resides in the executive and is entirely discretionary. John Locke defined it as "the power to act according to discretion, for the public good, without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it."[5] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explained that "The very nature of clemency is that it is grounded solely in the will of the dispenser of clemency. He need give no reasons for granting it or for denying it."

And where does this say that mercy isn't injustice?

And you hate that for some strange reason.

When did I express any emotion about it whatsoever?

Your question is like wondering why compassion, forgiveness, benevolence, and kindness even exist to begin with.

You're making things up again.

You're equivocating "unjust" again.

"Unjust" is part of the definition of "injustice". You said that the dictionary is authoritative, submit to its authority.

Wow. So you really believe compassion, forgiveness, benevolence, and kindness are always bad.

You're making things up again.

 

[Paulomycin]

X isn't part of the analogy, therefore the analogy is contradictory. Non-sequitur.

Thank you for your admission. I'm fine with that. After all, it's your analogy.

The name of the guy going to prison isn't "Jesus" either. If everything matched perfectly, it wouldn't be an analogy. You need to show why the motive is pertinent.

- It's literal death; not prison.
- Paid substitute vs. volunteer.

Those are huge. It's like 75% of the analogy doesn't fit. It's a real mess, man.

No, there just isn't any ambiguity to your equivocation: it's obvious.

If there's no ambiguity, then it's not an equivocation.

And where does this say that mercy isn't injustice?

What part of. . .

"and is entirely discretionary."

"without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it."

. . .and. . .

"He need give no reasons for granting it or for denying it."

. . .are you failing to comprehend here?

"Unjust" is part of the definition of "injustice".

All injustice is unjust.
Not all things that are "not justice" is injustice. <-- Like mercy.

You're making things up again.

Oh, so compassion, forgiveness, benevolence, and kindness are good? If so, then mercy is part of that category.

 

[Paulomycin]

Show me a claim I refused to support.

You literally think gainsaying = support.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thank you for your admission. I'm fine with that. After all, it's your analogy.

lol

- It's literal death; not prison.
- Paid substitute vs. volunteer.

Those are huge. It's like 75% of the analogy doesn't fit. It's a real mess, man.

Why are those huge, and why is what someone deserves not huge? How do you measure them?

If there's no ambiguity, then it's not an equivocation.

equivocate
verb

equiv·o·cate | \ i-ˈkwi-və-ˌkāt \
equivocated; equivocating
Definition of equivocate

intransitive verb

1: to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2: to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Nope. Nothing about ambiguity in that definition. Your claim is false.

What part of. . .

"and is entirely discretionary."

"without the prescription of the Law, and sometimes even against it."

. . .and. . .

"He need give no reasons for granting it or for denying it."

. . .are you failing to comprehend here?

I'm failing to see where you make a connection to injustice.

All injustice is unjust.

Why aren't all unjust things injustice?

Oh, so compassion, forgiveness, benevolence, and kindness are good?

I didn't say that either. You're still making things up.

If so, then mercy is part of that category.

I think I get your argument now. Mercy is good and injustice is bad therefore they aren't the same thing. Is that all you got?

You literally think gainsaying = support.

Another claim without evidence. Dismissed.

This is getting boring. And since all you have to argue with are common run of the mill fallacies, it's getting really repetitive. It's adorable that you and @Mark Quayle think you're winning and all, but come on...

 

[Paulomycin]

Why are those huge, and why is what someone deserves not huge? How do you measure them?

First of all, which type of analogy were you even trying to make? Do you even know?

Nope. Nothing about ambiguity in that definition. Your claim is false.

You forgot to look up "equivocal." Do I have to do all the work here?

I'm failing to see where you make a connection to injustice.

That's because it's not injustice at all. It's mercy.

Why aren't all unjust things injustice?

You seriously believe that all unjust and/or "not just" things are injustice?

This is getting boring.

I'm not here to entertain you.

And since all you have to argue with are common run of the mill fallacies,

Which fallacies? You can't even name them. So why fake it?

 

[Moral Orel]

First of all, which type of analogy were you even trying to make? Do you even know?

Here goes the red herring. I'll repeat the questions. Why is death v prison and volunteer v paid substitute "huge"; why is what a person deserves not huge; and how do you measure this?

You forgot to look up "equivocal." Do I have to do all the work here?

That's because you're equivocating words that aren't equivocal. That's why it's so obvious.

That's because it's not injustice at all. It's mercy.

You keep making this assertion. Prove it or drop it.

You seriously believe that all unjust and/or "not just" things are injustice?

Why aren't all unjust things injustice?

Which fallacies? You can't even name them. So why fake it?

I've been naming them, constantly. But because you don't understand how they work, you can't recognize them.

 

[Paulomycin]

Here goes the red herring. I'll repeat the questions. Why is death v prison and volunteer v paid substitute "huge"; why is what a person deserves not huge; and how do you measure this?

It's not a red herring. You really have no idea what type of analogy you're even trying to make here.

That's because you're equivocating words that aren't equivocal. That's why it's so obvious.

You can't equivocate words that aren't equivocal. You can't even fake it. So what are you even accusing me of?

You keep making this assertion. Prove it or drop it.

You conceded that justice and mercy are two completely different things already.

Why aren't all unjust things injustice?

So corduroy pants are an act of injustice. Gravy is injustice. Birthday parties is injustice.

I've been naming them, constantly. But because you don't understand how they work, you can't recognize them.

But you don't have any specific fallacies you can name (by their academic name).

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not a red herring. You really have no idea what type of analogy you're even trying to make here.

It is a red herring. You want to talk about analogy types instead of proving your claim. You failed to prove your claim, it's dismissed. My analogy stands.

You can't equivocate words that aren't equivocal.

Sure you can. You did. You can treat any two words/concepts you like as if they mean the same thing. The less ambiguous, the more obvious. Yours weren't ambiguous at all, so it was extremely obvious.

You conceded that justice and mercy are two completely different things already.

You're still equivocating between justice and unjust.

So corduroy pants are an act of injustice. Gravy is injustice. Birthday parties is injustice.

Those things aren't unjust. You failed to prove your claim, it's dismissed. There's no reason to think that mercy isn't an injustice.

But you don't have any specific fallacies you can name (by their academic name).

I can and have. You just don't realize your arguments are fallacious because you're not very good at logic.

 

[Paulomycin]

It is a red herring. You want to talk about analogy types instead of proving your claim. You failed to prove your claim, it's dismissed. My analogy stands.

It's not even analogous to what you intended.

Sure you can. You did. You can treat any two words/concepts you like as if they mean the same thing. The less ambiguous, the more obvious. Yours weren't ambiguous at all, so it was extremely obvious.

Please go look up equivocation fallacy. I'll wait.

You're still equivocating between justice and unjust.

You're not even trying to explain how at this point. And equivocation is when one word has multiple possible meanings. <-- There's your hint.

Those things aren't unjust.

By your "logic," they're not justice, therefore they're unjust, and thus injustice.

I can and have.

Then why are you stallling?

 

[Moral Orel]

It's not even analogous to what you intended.

Empty assertions are dismissed.

By your "logic," they're not justice, therefore they're unjust, and thus injustice.

False. You are using "not justice" and "unjust" interchangeably, not me. They can't be used interchangeably. <-- There's your hint.

Then why are you stallling?

I'm not stalling, I'm refusing to repeat myself.

 

[zippy2006]

Does God practice justice, or does God practice mercy?

I would say that practicing justice is to ensure that people get punishments they deserve.

And I would say that practicing mercy is to spare people from punishments they deserve.

Clearly, it isn't possible to do both, so which does God practice?

Jumping in blind and late... From Aquinas:

Objection 2. Further, mercy is a relaxation of justice. But God cannot remit what appertains to His justice. For it is said (2 Timothy 2:13): "If we believe not, He continueth faithful: He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself, as a gloss says, if He should deny His words. Therefore mercy is not becoming to God.

Reply to Objection 2. God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof. And thus it is said: "Mercy exalteth itself above judgment" (James 2:13).​

 

[Moral Orel]

Jumping in blind and late

Don't worry, you didn't miss anything.

Objection 2. Further, mercy is a relaxation of justice. But God cannot remit what appertains to His justice. For it is said (2 Timothy 2:13): "If we believe not, He continueth faithful: He cannot deny Himself." But He would deny Himself, as a gloss says, if He should deny His words. Therefore mercy is not becoming to God.

Reply to Objection 2. God acts mercifully, not indeed by going against His justice, but by doing something more than justice; thus a man who pays another two hundred pieces of money, though owing him only one hundred, does nothing against justice, but acts liberally or mercifully. The case is the same with one who pardons an offence committed against him, for in remitting it he may be said to bestow a gift. Hence the Apostle calls remission a forgiving: "Forgive one another, as Christ has forgiven you" (Ephesians 4:32). Hence it is clear that mercy does not destroy justice, but in a sense is the fulness thereof. And thus it is said: "Mercy exalteth itself above judgment" (James 2:13).

But see, I would say that giving someone more than they deserve does something against justice, even a gift. A just act is one in which someone gets what they deserve, and an unjust act is one in which someone gets something they don't deserve (reward or punishment). What is incomplete about this?

 

[zippy2006]

Don't worry, you didn't miss anything.

But see, I would say that giving someone more than they deserve does something against justice, even a gift. A just act is one in which someone gets what they deserve, and an unjust act is one in which someone gets something they don't deserve (reward or punishment). What is incomplete about this?

So it is unjust to give and receive gifts, or to find a dollar on the sidewalk, or to be born with functioning eyes? If so, we are departing from common usage of the word "unjust." What I would say is that giving a gift is not a just act, but neither is it an unjust act. It is a liberal act.