NationStates Jolt Archive

If original sin exists, people must pay for their ancestors' sins.
If people must pay for their ancestors' sins, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.
Therefore, if original sin exists, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.

*ponders the purpose of this thread*

*ponders the purpose of this thread*

The joke's on you!
I'm not sure why, but it is.

If the London Underground exists, moles will have less space to dig.

If moles have less space to dig, then there is more chance of finding Australia.

Therefore, if the London Underground exists, we must all dig to Australia.

Hypothetical Syllogism is pretty sweet, but all in all I have to say that I prefer Modus Tollens and Excluded Middle.

If the London Underground exists, moles will have less space to dig.

If moles have less space to dig, then there is more chance of finding Australia.

Therefore, if the London Underground exists, we must all dig to Australia.

I've played Mornington Crescent, so i think we can conlude that the London Underground does exist.

*begins digging*

Do the sins of our forefathers cummulate with the original sin? I thought the original sin was the fact that we must repent for man defying god by eating the forbidden fruit.

And also:

I fit in my sweater.
My sweater fits in my suitcase.
Therefore I fit in my suitcase.

Different sort of syllogism, same sort of logic ^^

If original sin exists, people must pay for their ancestors' sins.
If people must pay for their ancestors' sins, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.
Therefore, if original sin exists, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.

Not to get all dogmatic on ya... but... your original premise is wrong.

If original sin exists, someone must pay for people's ancestor's sins. (Apparently, that was ye olde Jesus.)

Jesus took care of the slavery thing. Reparations not needed.

Not to get all dogmatic on ya... but... your original premise is wrong.

If original sin exists, someone must pay for people's ancestor's sins. (Apparently, that was ye olde Jesus.)

Jesus took care of the slavery thing. Reparations not needed.

Funny, I was under the impression slavery outlasted Jesus by a good 1866 years. :D

I love lojik.

Funny, I was under the impression slavery outlasted Jesus by a good 1866 years. :D

Yeah, but his death absolves everybody of original sin. If you're baptised, you're only responsible for what you do.

Reparations are not intended to "punish" anyone, so the point is moot.

Reparations are not intended to "punish" anyone, so the point is moot.

Ah, but unlike that other thread, this one doesn't have a point, latent or otherwise.

I love lojik.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/humor-penguins.gif

Ah, but unlike that other thread, this one doesn't have a point, latent or otherwise.

I will refrain from giving it one, then. Nevermind.

:)

I forgot to make the poll public. :headbang:
Now I won't know who the blasphemer is that voted for !(AvB).

what now?

p.s. please explain your poll.

If original sin exists, people must pay for their ancestors' sins.
If people must pay for their ancestors' sins, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.
Therefore, if original sin exists, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.
Slavery isn't a crime.
There should be more slavery.

what now?

p.s. please explain your poll.

!(AvB) = Not A or B
!A•!B = Not A, and not B

!(AvB) = Not A or B
!A•!B = Not A, and not B

are those options different?

are those options different?

They are logically equivalent.
But which is more aesthetically pleasing?

They are logically equivalent.
But which is more aesthetically pleasing?
Your Momma?

Your Momma?

Oh snap!

They are logically equivalent.
But which is more aesthetically pleasing?

the second one i reckon. it has a certain symmetry... although i don't know what kind.

Funny, I was under the impression slavery outlasted Jesus by a good 1866 years. :D

Slavery ended worldwide in (35 + 1866 =) 1901?

EDIT:...or alternatively if you're just talking about your backwater country, are we to believe that Jesus died in 1BC? Means he would have been at most about eight when he got nailed to them bits of wood.

Reparations are not intended to "punish" anyone, so the point is moot.

The fact is though, reparations have got to come from someplace. If you take from those who are descended from slave owners, and give to those who are descendend from slaves (and I suppose just... ignore those unlucky people who are descended from both) then somebody is going to get 'punished'.

Furthermore, I am relatively certain that anyone who was a slave in the US is now dead. I don't think that anyone has a right to claim reparations.

The palestinians on the other hand... [/derail]

If original sin exists, people must pay for their ancestors' sins.
Unproven assumption. If A then B only works if you can prove it. Who says that people must pay for their ancestors' sins? How does the existance of orignial sin automaticaly necessitate this? Could original sin exist WITHOUT people having to pay for their ancestors' sins?

If people must pay for their ancestors' sins, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.

Another unproven assumption. Where is the proof that slavery is a sin? (Pleease note that I am not arguing it ISN'T, but you haven't proven it is..)

Therefore, if original sin exists, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.

Erroneous conclusion, based on unproven assumptions.

You might as well say:

If unicorns exists, pigs must fly.
If pigs must fly, everyone must believe in the Easter Bunny.
Therefore, if unicorns exist, everyone must believe in the Easter Bunny.



That being said, I actually agree with your concept, in part. If certain people believe that it is proper that "the child must pay for the sins of the father", or that we SHOULD be held accountable for orignial sin, then those people logically should also believe that reparations for other (perhaps more recent) sins, such as slavery, are appropriate.

However, this only would apply to people who BELIEVE in the orignal sin concept, and, as such, is somewhat limiting. People who hold different beliefs would be just as correct in asserting their own. Thus, the people who should pay reparation are the ones who believe they should.

This is where using religion to prove a logical point falls all to pieces.

If unicorns exists, pigs must fly.
If pigs must fly, everyone must believe in the Easter Bunny.
Therefore, if unicorns exist, everyone must believe in the Easter Bunny.

Yes, and why is this problematic for you?

Do the sins of our forefathers cummulate with the original sin? I thought the original sin was the fact that we must repent for man defying god by eating the forbidden fruit.

And also:

I fit in my sweater.
My sweater fits in my suitcase.
Therefore I fit in my suitcase.

Different sort of syllogism, same sort of logic ^^

And logically, if we have to pay for the sin of an ancestor so remote as to be mythological then we should also pay for the sins of ancestors whose existence is well documented.

The OP's logic is sound. The only question is do you believe in Original Sin, or inheriting the sins of the father?

Unproven assumption. If A then B only works if you can prove it. Who says that people must pay for their ancestors' sins? How does the existance of orignial sin automaticaly necessitate this? Could original sin exist WITHOUT people having to pay for their ancestors' sins?



Another unproven assumption. Where is the proof that slavery is a sin? (Pleease note that I am not arguing it ISN'T, but you haven't proven it is..)



Erroneous conclusion, based on unproven assumptions.

You might as well say:

If unicorns exists, pigs must fly.
If pigs must fly, everyone must believe in the Easter Bunny.
Therefore, if unicorns exist, everyone must believe in the Easter Bunny.



That being said, I actually agree with your concept, in part. If certain people believe that it is proper that "the child must pay for the sins of the father", or that we SHOULD be held accountable for orignial sin, then those people logically should also believe that reparations for other (perhaps more recent) sins, such as slavery, are appropriate.

However, this only would apply to people who BELIEVE in the orignal sin concept, and, as such, is somewhat limiting. People who hold different beliefs would be just as correct in asserting their own. Thus, the people who should pay reparation are the ones who believe they should.

This is where using religion to prove a logical point falls all to pieces.

Please explain to me how it does not follow that if you believe in Original Sin, which is descendants being held accountable for their ancestors' sin, that reparations are not due to the descendants of slaves simply because no one alive today was ever a slave owner or slave (the chief logic used to deny reparations.)

Yes, and why is this problematic for you?

Because I am an Anti-Bunnite, of course.

:p

Please explain to me how it does not follow that if you believe in Original Sin, which is descendants being held accountable for their ancestors' sin, that reparations are not due to the descendants of slaves simply because no one alive today was ever a slave owner or slave (the chief logic used to deny reparations.)
I'm not sure how Judaism handles this, but in Christianity, once you are Baptised, all of your sins up to that point, including original sin, is wiped away. Aside from that, original sin is a spiritual mark requiring punishment in the afterlife. There is no punishment in this world for original sin. If you want to tack slavery onto the list of sins wiped away by baptism and otherwise punishable by hellfire or whathaveyou, I don't think anyone would mind.

Please explain to me how it does not follow that if you believe in Original Sin, which is descendants being held accountable for their ancestors' sin, that reparations are not due to the descendants of slaves simply because no one alive today was ever a slave owner or slave (the chief logic used to deny reparations.)

I did not argue that at all... my point was that the logic of the OP only works IF you are a believer in the concept of orignal sin, and other than that is unproven (and, as with all such religious arguments, unprovable).

To answer your question, however, if you believe in original sin, the person your ancestors have offended and you must make reparations to is God. If you are a believer, then God still exsists. However, if you want to make reparations for slavery, who do you pay? The person your ancestors offended is long since dead and gone. The cases are not at all equal. In our current system of laws, if your grandfather committed a crime, you do not have to go to jail. Likewise, if your great uncle slandered someone, you cannot be sued for the crime. Thus, reparations for slavery become a personal issue for those who believe that they themselves should pay, and not an issue at all for those who don't. What some believe is the "right" thing to do in cases of relgious beliefs is not necessarily a universal truth.

A better use of all this concern and energy about reparations, in my view, would be to find ways of moving forward in positive steps. Let's work on making race LESS of a dividing issue, rather than continuing to force it to be an US v THEM problem.

If original sin exists, people must pay for their ancestors' sins.
If people must pay for their ancestors' sins, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.
Therefore, if original sin exists, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.

Sin exists, though it's hardly original; everyone who is anyone does it. Those who don't are either Buddha or some sort of silly Son of God, or something.

It's not about paying for what your progenitors did, but paying to be here. There's always a cost, even in metaphysics. You pay the time, you do the "cirme"; consumerism rules.

Slavery is a choice.

Slavery is a choice; and if you know anything about Rastafarianism, you know this: "the stone that the builder rufuse will always be the head corner stone."

Slavery is a choice; and if you know anything about Rastafarianism, you know this: "the stone that the builder rufuse will always be the head corner stone."
I'm not familiar with that word.

The problem with reparations today is the sin was against the slaves not against the decedents of the slaves. So even if the sons were responsible for the sins of the fathers, the people who were sinned against are long dead. So if your logic had any validity that validity ended when the last legally enslaved person died.

If original sin exists, people must pay for their ancestors' sins.
If people must pay for their ancestors' sins, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.
Therefore, if original sin exists, reparations for slavery are a necessary proposition.

First of all, original sin, as I understand it was the sin of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil; so this, and not the sins of our various subsequent ancestors, is the sin for which we are atoning. Therefore, reparations for slavery, having no connection with the actual original sin, are not a necessary proposition.