Family, Country and God.

[Glori.B]

fam, country, DOG


Cant have a family or country without a GOD?

thank Buddha for the first amendment. America's non-christian families must be less legitimate than, say, your average CHRISTIAN child raping compound cult.

i personally think you shouldn't have a family without a dog!

 

[Ravi]

No you didn't.

Saying it's at risk is a copout first of all. Risk is a constant. And secondly, that basically contradicts your assertion in the first place since putting something at risk isn't the same as being a pre-requisite...RETARD!

She is correct, you are being quite the wus if you can't have a discussion in the no flame zone but have to run off and start your own thread.

 

[mattskramer]

But I think as far as prioritizing your time, duty, and money, the first priority should be God, then country, THEN family. For example, I don't think it's a wise choice to buy a 4-wheeler for your son instead of paying taxes.

Suppose that your dearly loved family member was wrongly convicted of murder. You know him to be innocent. You tried to attend the trial but for some reason were unable to testify. Therefore he is unjustly sentenced to be executed. He escapes and asks you for help. If you aid him then you are committing a crime against the state. If you turn him in, you are being disloyal to your family member.

 

[Glori.B]

Um, is your answer "it depends?"

i am loyal to an ideal that could hypothetically clash with either, depending...

so, yes!

 

[Ravi]

Matt, no offense, but I meant the question as being if all things were equal.

 

[Glori.B]

Matt, no offense, but I meant the question as being if all things were equal.

i can't think of a circumstance where all things are "equal" AND i would have to choose between the two... can you?

 

[mattskramer]

Matt, no offense, but I meant the question as being if all things were equal.

Hmmm. If all things were equal then there would be no reason to put one before the other for they would all be equal. I doubt that I can answer the question unless there was a situation in which I’d have to put one before the other.

 

[mattskramer]

i can't think of a circumstance where all things are "equal" AND i would have to choose between the two... can you?

Exactly. In some cases family would be first. In other cases country would be first. It depends.

 

[Glori.B]

Hmmm. If all things were equal then there would be no reason to put one before the other for they would all be equal. I doubt that I can answer the question unless there was a situation in which I’d have to put one before the other.

 

[Anguille]

Now's when that fu emoticon would come in handy.

Here, you can borrow mine.
http://dl.glitter-graphics.net/pub/364/364671om6tmadclo.gif

 

[Glori.B]

Now's when that fu emoticon would come in handy.

here try this:

 

[AllieBaba]

God above country!!!! What if voices from your God tell you to blow up the Lincoln Monument?

God won't.

 

[Ravi]

For instance, what if you had a friend that was spying on the country for another government? In your opinion, the spying was meaningless because there was no way the other government would be able to use the information to their advantage. But at the same time, your friend was committing treason under law. Where would your loyalties lie?

 

[Ravi]

Damn, Matt, after rereading your example I realized it was perfect.

 

[mattskramer]

God won't.

It depends on the God that you believe in. Some people heard God saying to have followers commit suicide (Read about Jim Jones.) Some people heard God say to torture and kill those who don’t do or say the religious things that are expected of them (Read about the Spanish Inquisition.) Some people heard God say to conquer other nations. (Read about Manifest Destiny.)

 

[mattskramer]

Damn, Matt, after rereading your example I realized it was perfect.

I pride myself on coming up with hypothetical situations and circumstances that call for careful thought. I’m a big proponent of situational ethics and values clarification. I don’t need your help, but thanks anyway.

 

[manifold]

She is correct, you are being quite the wus if you can't have a discussion in the no flame zone but have to run off and start your own thread.

waaaaaaaaaaahhh!

Almost as much of a wus as crying about me ditching your thread.

 

[Glori.B]

For instance, what if you had a friend that was spying on the country for another government? In your opinion, the spying was meaningless because there was no way the other government would be able to use the information to their advantage. But at the same time, your friend was committing treason under law. Where would your loyalties lie?

how could you have the opinion that it is meaningless or not potentially harmful?

ravi, is this a confession?

 

[Ravi]

I pride myself on coming up with hypothetical situations and circumstances that call for careful thought. I’m a big proponent of situational ethics and values clarification. I don’t need your help, but thanks anyway.

*sheepish grin*

 

[mattskramer]

how could you have the opinion that it is meaningless or not potentially harmful?

ravi, is this a confession?

He is just not using it as a significant variable. Even if the other nation could not use it, it is still a crime to provide secret information to another nation.