Comment on Father sues Google, claiming Gemini chatbot drove son into fatal delusion
Ulrich@feddit.org 2 days agoBut if you ask a priest if it’s alright to pray while you’re smoking, they’d probably say yes, as you should feel free to pray to God whenever you need…
When would a priest ever tell anyone it’s not okay to pray?
BranBucket@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s the opinion on smoking, not praying, that differs.
In both cases you’re praying and smoking at the same time, so your actions don’t change, but the priest rationalizes two completely different answers based on the way the question is posed. It’s just an example to show how two contradictory answers can seem rational to the same person.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
No, the priest is answering 2 different questions:
What else they’re doing doesn’t impact the question.
BranBucket@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Those aren’t the same questions from the original post. You’ve omitted half the information given to the priest in each question.
Both questions, in their entirety, deal with smoking and praying. The subject is smoking and praying. You’ve reframed this as a question about smoking, and a question about praying and that was never the case.
Ulrich@feddit.org 1 day ago
I’ve omitted half of the part that doesn’t matter, as I explained in the comment. It doesn’t matter what comes after them, the answers will always be the same.
sudoer777@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
They aren’t contradictory though. Basically what they are saying is just praying > praying + smoking > just smoking.
BranBucket@lemmy.world 2 days ago
But in both cases, the person is asking to do the same thing. The order of the words in the sentence doesn’t change the end result, we always wind up with someone smoking and praying simultaneously, which may or may not be against God’s will.
Strip away the justifications and simplify the word choices and you get this:
Given that, can you say if it is right or wrong to smoke and pray simultaneously?
And again, this is just a hypothetical scenario. In the broader context of life, religion, and tobacco use, it’ll never be this simple, but it works for an example.
Now, someone might point out that by simplifying the wording, I’ve changed the meaning of the original statement to make it fit my argument, and that now it means something else. But that’s essentially my original point, phrasing and word choices can shape our reasoning, though pricesses, and how we interpret meaning in ways we aren’t immediately aware of, leading us to different conclusions or even delusional thinking in some cases.
sudoer777@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
Not really. They’re not just asking if they should pray and smoke simultaneously if you put them in contexts where it actually makes sense to ask those questions.
First, “pray” can mean different things, such as (1) a deep focused session, or (2) a lighter more casual session, both of which are standard definitions of the word. Since this request emphasizes prayer as the main action, (1) is most likely here. For a focused session, smoking is a distraction and not a good idea. The definition of “may” here is also subjective and not necessarily absolute, some people may consider it disrespectful, while others may still say that prayer at all is better than no prayer regardless of side actions, but it’s better to not smoke.
In this sentence, definition (2) of prayer seems more likely since the main focus of the request is smoking. Which to some people this may still be considered disrespectful like in the first request, but others are supportive of more casual prayer and smoking during casual prayer isn’t a problem like in focused prayer, and the idea that prayer is better than no prayer and “may” isn’t absolute still applies.
Not if you’re trying to prove that they’re contradictory, since the context is what actually makes the words mean something. If you take away the context, then it’s nothing more than shapes on a screen.
I agree with that