[Traditio]

I notice that often a lot of useless back-and-forth bickering goes on in debates. Serious topics which deserve serious attention are treated with dogmatic assertions of belief, one line retorts, personal attacks and name-calling. Y'all know who y'all are.

But, I have a solution to this problem! I propose that we all play a little game. But before we can play this little game, we have to be clear on 1. the objective of the game, 2. the goal of the players and 3. the rules.

1. The objective of the game. I shall give you guys dilemmas and or problems. The goal is to bring the players to propose solutions to the problem.

2. The goal of the players is the same. Each player shall desire to bring the other players to agreement with him on the answer to the problem.

Now the catch! There are some rules, namely, a method which you must follow:

The first player to attempt an answer at a problem must:

1. Restate the problem as he sees it.

2. Posit what s/he perceives to be the three most likely solutions.

3. Give reasons for these three being the most likely solutions.

4. Indicate which is the most likely solution of the three. Give reasons for it being the most likely. What pieces of evidence led you to this solution?

5. Give reasons for why the other two are less likely and describe what evidence would have to be present in order for each of the other two solutions to become more likely.

[TomO]

Originally Posted by Traditio

2. The goal of the players is the same. Each player shall desire to bring the other players to agreement with him on the answer to the problem.

Agree with me or the Mutt gets it.

[Traditio]

Each subsequent player must:

1. Briefly restate the problem in your own words.
2. Brieftly restate, in your own words, the 3 solutions given by the player above him.
3. Briefly restate the main arguments, in your own words, given for each by the player above him, both for the most likely solution, and against the less likely solutions.

Here's where it gets fun!

S/he must then:

1. Posit up to 3 alternative solutions which 1. are as likely or more likely as the ones given by the previous player and which 2. the player above may have missed, 3. giving reasons for why these solutions are more or as likely.

2. Indicate which, if any, pieces of evidence the previous player gave which aren't actually evidence for that solution. Perhaps the evidence which the previous player gave can be explained away by another solution? Perhaps the player listed it as evidence, but it's actually evidence against the solution he gave? Give reasons.

3. Indicate any pieces of evidence which the above player may have failed to consider, either for or against his solutions.

4. Posit what s/he feels to be the 2 most likely solutions, giving reasons/pieces of evidence for these two being the most likely.

5. Select one of the two solutions as most likely, giving reasons for this solution and against the other.

6. Describe what pieces of evidence would have to be in place for the less likely solution to become more likely.

Important: Each subsequent player MUST address the player directly above him. He may not address a previous player.

[Nick M]

Trad, liberals are not interested in what is right or a solution.

[Traditio]

Problem 1: Iranian Mystery: Murder or Suicide?

A woman is found on her bed, lying in a pool of her own blood, an apparent gunshot wound on the side of her head. No other wounds were found on her body. Next to the body, they found a revolver hand gun and a suicide note, which was placed on top of a copy of the King James version of the Christian Bible. There was no blood on either the suicide note or the Bible. The writing on the suicide note appears different from how she normally writes: but then, the handwriting appears shaky and hastily written. The suicide note reads:

An educated Christian woman in Iran? I was the only one I knew; I was alone in life; now, I shall be alone in death.

When questioned, her husband, a devout Muslim, answers that she came home from the university where she works around 5 PM, ate the dinner he prepared around 7, and then took a shower and went to bed an hour later. He said that he called the police after he heard a gunshot and found his wife dead.

Further investigation reveals that many of her relationships had gone sour. After her conversion to Christianity, he was infuriated by the news. He started making her life at work more and more difficult. In fact, he fired her that very day. Her coworkers report that her relationship with her boss seemed very good before her conversion, and they often ate lunch together. In fact, rumors had been circulating that they'd been having an affair.

Her family cut off all ties with her, but her brother took it the hardest. He often would send her angry letters and death threats. In fact, shortly after she was found dead, the police received a call that her brother was found dead in his bathroom. He apparently slit his wrists and waited to die in his bathtub.

Finally, there was no evidence that anyone broke into her home.

Who killed the woman? What was the cause of her death?

[TruthSetsFree]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Each subsequent player must:

1. Briefly restate the problem in your own words.
2. Brieftly restate, in your own words, the 3 solutions given by the player above him.
3. Briefly restate the main arguments, in your own words, given for each by the player above him, both for the most likely solution, and against the less likely solutions.

Here's where it gets fun!

S/he must then:

1. Posit up to 3 alternative solutions which 1. are as likely or more likely as the ones given by the previous player and which 2. the player above may have missed, 3. giving reasons for why these solutions are more or as likely.

2. Indicate which, if any, pieces of evidence the previous player gave which aren't actually evidence for that solution. Perhaps the evidence which the previous player gave can be explained away by another solution? Perhaps the player listed it as evidence, but it's actually evidence against the solution he gave? Give reasons.

3. Indicate any pieces of evidence which the above player may have failed to consider, either for or against his solutions.

4. Posit what s/he feels to be the 2 most likely solutions, giving reasons/pieces of evidence for these two being the most likely.

5. Select one of the two solutions as most likely, giving reasons for this solution and against the other.

6. Describe what pieces of evidence would have to be in place for the less likely solution to become more likely.

Important: Each subsequent player MUST address the player directly above him. He may not address a previous player.

ths is a little complicated

esp when one is pressed 4 time as i am right now...

but i am interested... l

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by TomO

Agree with me or the Mutt gets it.

I guess I won't post a youtube clip to Blazing Saddles with your dilema.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Nick M

I guess I won't post a youtube clip to Blazing Saddles with your dilema.

Nick_M, take a crack at solving the puzzle. I think it will be fun to see what everyone comes up with.

[Nick M]

Originally Posted by Traditio

Nick_M, take a crack at it. I think it will be fun to see what everyone comes up with.

It is past my bed time. I can form a theory just like everybody else, but can't prove it. And muslims wouldn't hide an "honor killing" in their own country.

[Traditio]

Originally Posted by Nick M

It is past my bed time. I can form a theory just like everybody else, but can't prove it. And muslims wouldn't hide an "honor killing" in their own country.

This is the fun of it. I'm the only one who actually knows what "really" happened. I've given pieces of evidence, and the goal is to see how y'all put together the pieces.

So, presumably, you think that it's an honor killing. Preferably following the method I gave in the rules, tell me what happened, Nick_M.

[OMEGA]

Problem 1: Iranian Mystery: Murder or Suicide?

Murderous Prejudice of Christians in other Countries.

-- The local authorities should take care of that problem.
---------------------------------------------
Nu 35:25 And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
Nu 35:27 And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:
De 19:12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.


---------------------------------------------

Ro 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves,
but rather give place unto wrath:
for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God,
and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me,
I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

--------------------------------
PS: Tom O,

That was Funny
----------------------------

[Traditio]

Omega: It's an exercise. Read the story. Then, read the rules. And then, follow the rules to form solutions to the story. It'll be fun.

[OMEGA]

Tradio,

Haven't got time .

Too busy getting beaten by my wife

Now she is looking for her 9mm Glock.

-------------------------------

[bybee]

Originally Posted by Traditio

I notice that often a lot of useless back-and-forth bickering goes on in debates. Serious topics which deserve serious attention are treated with dogmatic assertions of belief, one line retorts, personal attacks and name-calling. Y'all know who y'all are.

But, I have a solution to this problem! I propose that we all play a little game. But before we can play this little game, we have to be clear on 1. the objective of the game, 2. the goal of the players and 3. the rules.

1. The objective of the game. I shall give you guys dilemmas and or problems. The goal is to bring the players to propose solutions to the problem.

2. The goal of the players is the same. Each player shall desire to bring the other players to agreement with him on the answer to the problem.

Now the catch! There are some rules, namely, a method which you must follow:

The first player to attempt an answer at a problem must:

1. Restate the problem as he sees it.

2. Posit what s/he perceives to be the three most likely solutions.

3. Give reasons for these three being the most likely solutions.

4. Indicate which is the most likely solution of the three. Give reasons for it being the most likely. What pieces of evidence led you to this solution?

5. Give reasons for why the other two are less likely and describe what evidence would have to be present in order for each of the other two solutions to become more likely.

The fact that you are a college student is showing! My brain hurts already!
I will give it a try after I have raised my glucose level.

[Quincy]

Traditio, I like your idea here, I hope it takes off. I'll do my best with my answer. I assume I will be the first, if not I apologize ahead of time as I don't see any other serious answer yet. I can think of three scenarios here.

The problem here, from my viewpoint, is a lack of liberty creating an environment of depression for this lady . This lady effectively had no rights to choose the path she felt was right for her. Culturally speaking, she wasn't shown any tolerance for being different. Her conversion to Christianity put her a disadvantage with the predominately fundamental Muslim culture she was part of. While I will assert that she is responsible here, this case is a dire reminder of why liberty is very important.

Originally Posted by Traditio

Finally, there was no evidence that anyone broke into her home.

Who killed the woman? What was the cause of her death?

I see three viable answers to this scenario. One is that she simply killed herself as a result of a string of bad choices, this is the point I will assert. The other is that her family is responsible because they pushed her too far. Lastly, is the chance that her conversion ultimately was responsible for her death.

The reason for thinking she killed herself is because there was no evidence of a break in. There was a single gunshot wound and she was laying beside the gun. There was also a note indicating that was her plans there too. Since the note was written hastily in manner, it's easy to conclude she was in an unstable mental state.

Now, the reason one could conclude her family is responsible is simply because of how they treated her. They disowned her and it's possible that could have contributed to her mental state.

Some may point to her conversion as being the ultimate antecedent for the resulting chain of events since it was what seemingly set everything into motion.

I posit that she is the person ultimately responsible for taking her own life. It was a suicide, it was done by her own hands and most importantly there is no evidence to suggest help nor foul play being involved. There may have been contributing factors but the evidence shows it was her choice and her action alone. This is simply the fact of the situation.

The less likely solution is that she was bullied and pressured into the act. While she was treated wrongly and there is no excuse for that, there is absolutely no evidence that proves she attempted to reconcile the differences. It may not have been successful but being bullied is a two way street. Letting it happen to you without doing anything about it is a choice. In today's global 24/7 news cycle she could have found help.

The least likely solution in my opinion is that her conversion is responsible. Yes it was her choice and yes it placed her in danger but again, there is no evidence that she sought out help, exile or even reconciliation. You have to ask yourself why she would make such a dangerous choice in the first place. Ask yourself why she never sought out help. Then ask yourself if you would do the same thing. I believe the answer is clear, she is responsible for her own death. The evidence points to depression, leading to her compounding the situation with a string of bad choices.