For me the entire exchange with TD has revolved around the use of the word 'reasonable'. This Fatwa is reasonable IMO because it's based on sound reasoning. Am I wrong there? So, if it's reasonable, TD was wrong to make the original post and question how reasonable the Fatwa is. Or maybe there's a different definition of 'reasonable', being used here.

How reasonable, or not, Fatwas are generally is a completely different argument IMO. If TD was in fact commenting on Fatwas generally, I didn't pick that up, or it was there but got lost in the 'loaded question' digression.

Lol whats wrong man?

Tame keep in mind I do have respect for you. Its just an internet board take a chill pill my friend

keep in mind I have poured praise on the religion of Judaism.

Curry.

No, it has not revolved around the word "reasonable". It has revolved around you constructing questions and running from your own text because the only answer you would ever accept is the one you have already envisioned. Which apparently has something to do with "views only being a result of group membership, and reasonable disagreement therefore being impossible" (paraphrased).

The sad thing is that you don't even see the irony of such a view. It is a classic case of what I call observer paradox: The observer failing to extend to himself and his hypothesis the criteria regarding everybody and everything else.

Is it worth my time to poke back through posts to get the running joke here?

I get that we have an evangelical here and you are demonstrating disdain, but I need a bit of background to get up to speed.

I normally only do "abasement of reason" when dealing with new age or post modernists. Are you doing the "stuff I like" preference joke?

Is he being all tendentious again?

Apparently tendentiousness is a chronic disability, not just an acute one.

The proper term, unless I am so far behind the conversation as to be completely lost (a distinct possibility), is "universalizability."

Well, this just confirms what I suspected, that we've been talking past each other the whole time. If this is true, what you said above, then you shouldn't have any trouble showing why I'm wrong about the Fatwa we're discussing being reasonable.

You've been asked a couple of times now to explain why you don't think it's reasonable to 'cling to the notion that this is reasonable' , is there a reason that you're not answering?

That's not what irony means and that's not what's happening.

We have not been talking past eachother. You have tried from the start to pose questions in such a manner that there can only be one possible answer.

That is not asking. That is demanding.

Well if your group says so, it must be reasonable.

Not worth poking back. It's more of an experiment. I'm checking if it matters what I write.

I don't think it does.

Are you retracting your comment then?

This one:

Shame, because I'm genuinely interested to hear your explanation for why it might not be 'reasonable'. But once again, you've not taken the opportunity to provide that explanation.

Did you threaten to over-rule him?

Why would I retract that? You have provided no good argument that effect, and the last time you raised this issue you didn't even respond to my reply.

Did you threaten to over-rule him?

It was not an interpretation, it was the implication of your own ignorance.

I think I have, several times. It's the 'something is reasonable if it's based on sound logic' argument, which in turn is based on the definition of 'reasonable' that I'm using. I can see how this wouldn't be true if you were using a different definition of 'reasonable' but since you won't answer my question it's hard to say.

Can you explain why it's not reasonable?

Oh, you are doubling down, thought you might.

Here's my post and your response:

Let's count the ways you messed this up:

You: " A religious ministry is statesanctioned to be able to religiously bind 76% of the populace to verdicts that are not governed by checks and balances."

I didn't call fatwas reasonable, so this makes no sense.

You: " In addition leaving the religion carries a sentence of up to 3 years in prison and public flogging, this also under a secondary court system with no checks and balances. "

Right, that's why I said this:

Me: "you pick the worst, most easily rebutted examples imaginable to make your points. Why not education for women in Islam? Or severe penalties for apostasy? Why this example?"

As in... there are obviously unjust/harmful examples that MB could have picked, but he chose to focus on one that is far less obviously unjust/harmful. It's pretty clear you didn't read what I wrote.

You: "To cling to the notion that this is "reasonable" because one might conceivably construct a logic argument that is valid... Well, words aren't enough."

As we established, you don't seem to have a grasp on what I was calling 'reasonable'. But neither was I arguing that 'reasonable' is synonymous with 'logically valid'. Just that manned Mars missions are considered very dangerous (if not too dangerous to allow) by entities like NASA, and prohibitions against harm are not wild and crazy. To take a less controversial example, imagine a fatwa that said "all children aged 4-16 must receive a free education". I don't need to give a deductive argument about why the former is a reasonable imperative and "girls must not be allowed a formal education" is not.

Again, the point here is not about fatwas, per se. It's that MB is setting the bar too low if he thinks the Mars fatwa "proves" that Islam suppresses freedom of choice, and that there are many other prohibitions that provide better support for that position. But it looks like you just saw the word 'reasonable' and then made up your own narrative around what I might have said. The fact that you brought up apostacy laws as a rebuttal to my argument that apostacy laws are unjust demonstrates your lack of reading comprehension.

You: "But yeah, if course it is vacuous to protest, since I am forbidden to buy nuclear weapons I am treated pretty much identically."

This is the opposite of what I said. Strict prohibitions against buying nuclear weapons are reasonable, whereas strict prohibitions against leaving a religion are unreasonable. The content of the prohibition is very important. And although I didn't bring it up in that particular post, so is the implementation of the prohibitions.

I already have. You did not reply. When I point out that you did not reply, you ignore this and cut the quote mid-sentence.

I'll make it brief: I have not said anything about sound logic and reasonableness. Soundness and validity are not the same in logic arguments.

Your manner of questioning is therefore not relevant.