ATTN: Cal
-
But when there's a disagreement on what actually constitutes human life, your principle on abortion is irrelevant to those that don't believe it was a human life. Are you sure you want to compare me to Stalin and Hitler for being pro-Choice? Really? Get a grasp on history, please. Thanks.
********************************
I didn't compare you to Hitler or Stalin, knucklehead. I simply stated that "for the greater good" can easily become a dangerous vice, instead of a virtue.
You were doing a fine job, until you went and pulled a liberal Heckism on me - playing the "victim" when I was really
on a roll. If I speak of the cruelty of "Christain zealots" during the Crusades, I wouldn't be comparing me to them.
Don't play the victim, Vapor - it's a self-defeating psychological defense mechanism.
Admit it, you laughed at my conservative ship vs liberal ship. I mean, come on. Admit it...
***********************************************
or "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".
Exactly. That's why everything is relative. Nothing is set in stone.
************************************************
I never spoke of "written in stone". I spoke of linear vs comprehensive analysis of issues, and I spoke of TENDENSIES on both sides,
imho.
Principles do not reverse themselves out of greed, political expediency, or hatred.
Your "relativism" does. Nothing is set in stone? Everything is relative? Genocide? Child sexual abuse? Do I need to repost
the testimony of the nurse who held an infant that survived an abortion attempt so the child was PUT INTO A CLOSET and
allowed to die of neglect? That's okay sometimes, because "all things are relative?"
yes, you know better.
*************************************************
That is a fool's game, Vapor. Societies can't win. Liberals fall on the wrong side of issues all too often because of it.
You can call it a fool's game if you like, it isn't. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes my point of view different. You think you're absolutely right. You do. This is why you're considered more closed-minded than me.
*************************************************
No, it's a fool's game because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I never said I was absolutely nothin. I simply am trying to explain
how i see the differences between how you and other libs see things, and how I and other conservatives see them.
That, and why I don't just toss my beliefs out the window because you say stuff. And, vica versa.
I understand your humanistic bent on philosophy, but you won't understand mine. We disagree, but I get where you are coming from, and I disagree.
*****************
sorry about your shoulder
But thanks for the reply. *****************
THANKS ! My wonderful cute Wifie is having fun doing my therapy on my arm for me. @@
I heal fast, and my friends and brother and sister in law are amazed that the bigger scar on my shoulder (3")
has healed very well. Had surgery on the 16th, and the tape on the incisions was taken off the 29th. Lookin good,
except my powerful @@ left shoulder is wimpy now. "sigh"
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
--------------------
"Humanistic government bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
***FIXED***
*****************
"And the soft tyranny of anti_God humanist statists turns to hard tyranny throughout history" Cal
(I'm currently reading Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" so...)
-
Thanks for joining in, Smalls !
I don't see how slavery can be any kind of moral equivalency question.
but it has been in the past.
"for the greater good" and "moral equivalency" etc...
has lent itself to extreme outrageous persecution of peoples in history.
The nazis extermination of the Jews.... the starving of millions of people in the Ukraine.
Both those hideous events in history were justified for the "greater good".
These examples are just an extension of simplistic humanistic philophies by certain societies.
All I was saying, Vapor, is that human viewpoint run amuck with no basis on no established and
accepted principle has happened in the past, and the inhuman results occured.
Those principles are NOT law, but law is based, often, ON them.
Society has a right to protect itself, but society must also protect the -established- rights of INDIVIDUALS
making up that society. Lacking that, society falls into disarray, and violence, and oppression.
Smalls is right, Vapor, be careful about relying on the "moral relativism" justification for change.
-
Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.
But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.
Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.
Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.
Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.
But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.
Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.
Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.
Well if we assume it's societal law, then that puts a prerequisite on that law; meaning it's not absolute. So I suppose I am arguing under the concept of natural law. But even so, the argument for absolute societal laws is still kind of sketchy, imo.
I disagree with you about adultery. Multiple partners is the norm in many animals, and even in many societies. You didn't answer how you felt about polygamy/bigamy. It happens in Utah. It happens in much of the Islamic world. Hell, each man is promised 40 virgins in Paradise in Islam.
Pedophilia. I don't know. Everything I know about it, I learned from Chris Hansen in To Catch a Predator, lol, that show needs to come back. But they'd pretend to be 14 or 15 year old girls or boys sometimes. Then the people that would come would get labeled as pedophiles. Maybe it's not the most precise definition, but idk.
I don't see how your government-issued wife example works, though. Who decides what is right or wrong. In some cultures of the world (Islamic, Indian), people may believe that it's truly right. Obviously, because of your upbringing in a Western country, you look upon prearranged marriages and Sharia law as barbaric. I'd agree that they are barbaric, but that doesn't make us the paramount authority on morality.
And yes, concerning Hitler, moral relativism puts me on very shaky ground. Was Hitler absolutely evil? I'd still say no. I think he's wrong, but I'd argue that he was strongly misguided. He believed he was doing right. He convinced millions he was doing right. Millions of people believed that exterminating an entire group of people would result in a better world. Though the time and scale that he did it were unprecedented, I'd still argue that what he did was only wrong on a relative moral scale. Genocides have happened thousands of times since the time of written history. Look at the praises the Jews got from Yahweh for committing genocides during their expansion. Look at the expansion of Islam. Looking back now, what they did is barbaric, but at the time, it was necessary to carve out a foothold in the world, and lead to the largest cultural movement (Abrahamic religions) that the world has ever seen. Was establishing this culture wrong? I'd say that if you look back today, the answer is yes. But if you're around then, the answer is no. This dynamic demonstrates that there is no absolute moral law. Are there laws that our society tends to universally gravitate to? Perhaps, but if it takes 4000 years to come to a unanimous agreement (which there still really isn't) then it isn't absolute.
-
I didn't compare you to Hitler or Stalin, knucklehead. I simply stated that "for the greater good" can easily become a dangerous vice, instead of a virtue.
You were doing a fine job, until you went and pulled a liberal Heckism on me - playing the "victim" when I was really
on a roll. If I speak of the cruelty of "Christain zealots" during the Crusades, I wouldn't be comparing me to them.
Don't play the victim, Vapor - it's a self-defeating psychological defense mechanism.
Okay, let's see, if you want to claim that you aren't comparing me to Hitler and Stalin, don't use them as explicit examples of what will happen if people think the way I think. Get it?
From the nazi extermination of Jews, to ancient tribes who sacrificed virgins to their "sun god", to
the starvation of millions in the Ukraine by Stalin taking all food from them to support the Soviet Union (the Ukraine was their "bread-basket").. etc etc throughout history... for "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".
You cherry-picked the very worst examples of people acting for the "greater good." I don't advocate any kind of extremism, imo, I'm just looking for a happy medium. Working for the greater good, and not abusing it, can lead to good things. Abuse of capitalism really screws people over too, do I even have to mention companies deemed too big to fail? Letting people work as individuals that screw each other over to get to the top, and assuming that they'll help out others is very naive. We're not the white knights of the world; fighting for individual rights (capitalism vs. communism) has resulted in some horrible human rights abuses. The situations that we created when expanding our influence over South America are morally reprehensible. I feel that what Hitler and Stalin did was ethically disgusting. I feel that many of the things the US has done have been ethically disgusting as well. I don't want some socialist utopia, nor do I want fascist nor capitalist utopia. I don't think any can exist, so please, the next time you consider comparing me to Hitler or Stalin, reconsider. Thanks.
No, it's a fool's game because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I never said I was absolutely nothin. I simply am trying to explain
how i see the differences between how you and other libs see things, and how I and other conservatives see them.
That, and why I don't just toss my beliefs out the window because you say stuff. And, vica versa.
I understand your humanistic bent on philosophy, but you won't understand mine. We disagree, but I get where you are coming from, and I disagree.
I do understand yours. Your beliefs are based on the Holy Bible. You've said it yourself in other topics. It's the one true word. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. I can understand where you're coming from. Because Jesus/Moses/YHWH/Isaiah/etc said these things, you must uphold them. We both claim to understand where the other is coming from, and we both claim that the other doesn't understand us. This is where we sit. But because you hold the Bible as the true authority on morality, you close your mind to things that would contradict the inspired word of God. I, as far as I can tell, have no such authority. I have nothing to restrict or mold my beliefs except my knowledge of history, and interpretation of the events that unfold around me. If you believe me to be wrong, please provide an example of something that restricts my moral views to the degree the Bible does for you.
Your "relativism" does. Nothing is set in stone? Everything is relative? Genocide? Child sexual abuse? Do I need to repost
the testimony of the nurse who held an infant that survived an abortion attempt so the child was PUT INTO A CLOSET and
allowed to die of neglect? That's okay sometimes, because "all things are relative?"
yes, you know better.
Read your Bible. There are places where it advocates all sorts of shit we would find appalling. The point is, that genocides were once okay, and they were okay according to your god, YHWH. I think it's in Leviticus, but you can find a verse where it advocates dashing the heads of your enemies' babies against a rock. You want to talk about child abuse? Read up on Lot and his daughters. You can come out and say, oh, well Jesus didn't actually say any of these things, but before that, this WAS the word of God. This was the moral paramount. The amount of moral contradictions in the Bible itself support my claim that morality is not absolute.
/edit
And I may have laughed when I read your boat analogy. But I certainly wasn't laughing with you
I mean, did you really just quote yourself? One of my speakers at my high school graduation did that. Worst speech ever. -
Kinda of quickie here so forgive me. The wife spread eagle argument wasn't necessarily applying to arranged marriages, merely I am saying that if the partner is not willing then it is wrong no matter who says otherwise. The 'it takes two to tango' scenario, if one is not tangoing and is in fact pleading for the band to stop I do not believe the dance to be immoral (admit it that is kind of a funny analogy).
On adultery/polygamy argument I must have missed the boat the first time so let me take another angle that concerns both. In a world of 6 billion people the concerns over this argument are definitely diminished, so image that there are only 428 people left on earth (I pulled that number from a memory of 2012 when they were talking about how much different DNA was needed to repopulate the human race. So we pair off those 428 for the purpose of re-population. Take either scenario, a man wooing/domineering/conning 10 women to become his wives and only have relations with him. Or the man who has his mate, decides it's not enough and finds 9 more willing to have fun on the side. In both cases imagine that all 10 women have his children. In the polygamy situation at least it is known and plans can be changed to accommodate. Now, in the adulteress case, the 9 other children were born without the knowledge of the rest. This could easily result in incest situation where the gene pool is dumbed down possibly ending any chance of re-population. Which by the way, has been a problem in the animal community where a 'stud' has nailed too many partners. I know for a fact the certain breed lineage in dogs has been all but ruined due to inbreeding.
-
Interesting point, but are you suggesting an absolute moral framework based solely on furthering mankind's progress toward... something? An enlightened era perhaps? But what is this end that you're aiming for? When you defined examples for absolute moral wrongs, you said that none of it was natural or beneficial to humankind. What defines something as beneficial to humankind?
-
Indeed I do believe that moral frameworks are essentially designed to maximize human life. Now I cannot pretend to know what the ends are to these means as I am not God/ nor am I enlightened enough to catch anything more than the occasional fleeting glimpse of how this end may look. This is why at the beginning I said that you and I were having more of a religious argument rather than a political one. And don't forget that I am not going on the religious definition/preconception of God. I have explained in detail before that I try to set my prism through the philosophical definition of God.
-
Okay, so let's take it down a level. Here, the term "absolute" no longer means absolute. We're talking absolute in... political terms I guess. Let me try to define what I mean. An absolute wrong, in this sense would be something such as rape. If someone running for office commits rape, it's career suicide. It's something that no one on any point of the political spectrum should be okay with. So maybe, something, that most everyone would agree unanimously on could be considered an absolute moral truth.
Aside from rape, what else is there? Pedophilia, perhaps, but if both parties are willing and the younger person is at least pubescent, I'd argue that some would find it okay. You mentioned sexual acts of perversion that added nothing to the human agenda as being absolute moral wrongs. Well where does the line get drawn at what sex acts are absolutely morally wrong? Paying for sex is one. Adultery would be another (thanks Wild Bill). What about oral sex? Premarital sex? Anal sex? Gay sex?
I think that we'll find, even now, that the term "absolute" is not static. I would bet if some politicians admitted they were gay, they'd lose their positions and support pretty quickly. I bet that will not be true in 20 years. But hey, if Barney Frank is openly gay, and a member of Congress, I guess that eliminates gay sex (that is, putting a penis in another man's ass) from the list of absolute moral wrongs.
-
Okay, let's see, if you want to claim that you aren't comparing me to Hitler and Stalin, don't use them as explicit examples of what will happen if people think the way I think. Get it? Vapor]
****************************************
el wrongo, bongo.
I never said "what WILL happen", I said what CAN happen, and historically HAS happened. It has nothing to do with
saying you would so and so, or comparing you etc.
Like I said, don't play the liberal victim game. It isn't about you personally, Vapor. I'm explaining how I see things, and how you
sometimes, and liberals, a lot of the time, see them.
And, your comment on the Bible? Your example is cherry picked from the OLD TESTAMENT. The NEW TESTAMENT
supercedes the old.
Or, we would still have to do works out the wazoo and be perfect to be saved, and we are unable to do that, since we
are imperfect.
That is the point of Jesus' death on the cross.
The Bible is hardly the end all for my moral values. ie, the Bible, imho, never says anything anywhere about
interracial marriage. But I know that interracial marriage is perfectly fine by me, and i see no reason to think otherwise.
Others, conservatives and libs perhaps, think that the possible social ostricization is a reason for being against that,
but so would be being a Browns fan in Pittsburg be a problem with that. GGG
My life's experiences over eh... some...decades more than you.. ahem.... give me more reason to believe what I believe,
that you, in that dept. Doesn't mean I'm right, just means my life's experiences are many, as a lot of older folks do, not that I'm
that much of an older folk but ... eh
you know what I mean.
There are some libs screaming in the past on this board about the 2nd ammendment does not mean private citizens can bear arms.
blah blah blah.
then the Supreme Court ruled in exactly what we told them. They disappeared.
I understand subjective judgement, and I understand core principles of our freedom's existence.
Those principles are not subjective.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... is that really open to interpretation when you consider the life
of the unborn? Or just born?
We agree to disagree. But doesn't help to say I compared you, said what you will do etc. That is incorrect, for whatever reasons
prompt you to staunchly emphasize what isn't even the legit statements I've made at the time.
But thanks for the words about my shoulder. It'll be about 3-4 months before I can start using my own left arm again.
crap.
-
Then why do you have such a problem with homosexuality? Jesus said NOTHING about queers being wrong. The NT says women should keep quiet and be pregnant. Do you believe that, too? Everyone cherry picks from the Bible. The difference is, you hold its contents to be absolute truths, I don't.
There are many atheists that have lived as long as you or longer and kept their religious convictions.
-
Oh, I'm sure. But none of them would have my experiences in life. And, they are obviously linear thinkers,
with a restricted development in their childhood development.... @@
anyways... ggg
God created Adam. Then, seeing that Adam was lonely and incomplete in his life....
he created Eve.
Man...Woman.
Now, you show me where God created Adam, then created another Adam to be his eh....
better half... and I'll admit I'm wrong.
"Adam and Eve, sitting in a tree, making wrongie of you, and rightee of me."
-
Adam and Eve is a fairy tale.
-
But however we were created, we became more than one or two, via two different
sexes mating.
It's the natural order of things. It's biology. It's in the Bible. There would be no mammals if not for
MALE and FEMALE... well, except for a very few species like kangaroos, etc.
But, with humans, it is MALE-FEMALE.
To pervert the natural order of humanity's lives... is to say that the human
species continues via same sex births. That is biologically impossible.
so, if something is un-natural, un-scriptural, not historical in terms of our existence method,
An UNbiological abberation hardly deserves "normal" status, no matter how you shape the cookie.
It's still a cookie.
-
The difference between humans and most other animals is that we don't do things purely for the proliferation of our species. Humans and dolphins and there's one other species (I think) enjoy having sex for pleasure. Is the act of recreational sex unnatural? Why does it matter if it's with the same sex or not?
-
Crack jokes all you like, I don't find gay bashing particularly funny. I have friends whose families have more or less disowned them because of who they're attracted to. I'm an advocate of gay rights. If that makes me some kind of fag, in your eyes, so be it you f'cking prick.
-
And you're an ignoramus. How the f'ck does defending gay lifestyles make me disgusting? You're the one that's being a sickeningly barbaric prick. "Wahhhh, it's different and queer, they're all fags and going to rot in hell anyways." What would Jesus do, you motherf'cker? Answer? Hate fags, apparently.
Nothing like dehumanizing people based on where they stick their penis, especially when they're two consenting adults. Hope you've never committed sodomy. Your Bible says something about that, last I checked. You do know that a bj counts, right?
-
1 - What the hell is a benny boy?
2 - Misery must love company. Must be lonely to have sucked at life as much as you did, and to only be good enough to kill people, you uneducated idiot, no wonder you can't find a job. Of course you don't want me to succeed because you're jealous I'm more intelligent than you.
I hope I have to treat you someday. Keep hating, troll. Keep hating. You're a vile, homophobic, gay-bashing idiot who's already failed at life. Sorry, but I won't be joining you down there.
-
XD
Yes, you are older and probably fatter than I am. You're definitely the biggest idiot on this forum, and that includes the Steelers trolls. So there you have it, superior in the big three.
Also, you're superior at not being very good at finding a job. Haha.
Of course I haven't actually accomplished anything. Do you have any idea what an undergraduate degree does? No. I'm still working on my bachelor's, buddy. Maybe in 2 years, you'll have a case about my accomplishments, but I doubt it.
So, in addition to me wanting to be a doctor for most of my life, knowing that I've come pretty close to not cutting it my fresh and soph year, and having a chip on my shoulder because of that. Because if I fail, not only do I let myself down, completely, but I'd also be bankrupting my father and my grandmother because they co-signed my student loans. On top of all that, you've given me another reason to succeed. Just to spite your hateful, ignorant ass. You had better believe that when I get accepted into med school, I'll be making a topic here, just for you.
Undaunted, I knew the game was mine to win. Just like in life, all my successes depend on me. I am the man that has the ball. I am the one that can throw it faster than xxxx. This is why I'm better than everyone else in the world. Kiss my ass and suck my dick. Everyone.
You can suck it too, you f'cking closet case. Usually, the most vocally opposed are the ones that suppress it the worst.
-
Gosh, Vapor. I thought you liberals were SO wonderfully OPEN-MINDED ABOUT BEING DISAGREED WITH.
yeah. Everybody else has to be "open minded", but liberals go ballistic when other folks won't believe
how liberals want them to believe.
*****NAILED******
And, I gave good reasons why I believe what I believe,
and Vapor says he has friends, emotional ... linear response.
Liberals really can't help themselves.
It's sad.
-
Cal, I'm not 'going ballistic' because he disagrees with me. I'm stooping to his level because of the manner he posted; he's calling me disgusting for supporting the gay lifestyle, and then went on to say that he hopes I fail at everything, and that I'll never amount to anything. That's what I'm responding to.
I just really don't get gay bashing. Why is it that big of a deal if two consenting adults that happen to be the same sex are attracted to each other? Cal, I still don't have an issue with your argument. Well, I guess I do, but the way you're presenting it is fine. Everything in this thread was fine until diehard came in and trolled. Well, guess what, he wants to blatantly troll and call me a disgusting person for supporting gays, I'll make fun of him for being an unmarketable idiot, I don't have a problem stooping down to the lowest common denominator (which in this case, is diehard).
I can't believe you're actually going to support him for coming into what was a pretty damn good debate (as far as this forum goes), and straight up bashing me. Then when I respond with a rational response, and he calls me "xxxxing disgusting." Then he tells me that he knows I'm going to fail at life, and that he's superior to me. And you don't criticize him at all? Sorry, I'm not going to sit there like a good little lib and take that. And you've got the nerve to say I'm the one out of line? Hell no, he can eat my dick. And if you think I'm any more out of line than he was, then you can step outside of your guys' circle jerk and eat my dick, too.
And, I gave good reasons why I believe what I believe,
You did. I'll give you that. I may disagree with them, but in no way was I trying to attack you in any of my responses to diehard.
and Vapor says he has friends, emotional ... linear response.
Yes, because there are no emotional issues that you refuse to budge on
Don't know why you think this affects my ability to have friends, either, I'm in college, lots of people that agree with me are in college. Your point of view on gays would lose you a bunch of respect on most college campuses, even the conservative ones like Dayton. Gay-bashing is equivalent to being a racist, as far as I and many others are concerned.Liberals really can't help themselves.
It's sad.
And with that jab, neither can you. Would you care to continue the discussion, or should we continue to flame each other?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login