Who should rule test?

[RetiredGySgt]

listen, you can pretend that the entire run up to the war wasn't a conglomerate of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION but it looks to me like you are dancing just like you accuse Larkin of...



you retard.

Of course it was about WMD's , but that is not what you have previously claimed you could provide proof of. Now is it? Shall I remind you of what it was you claimed you could provide evidence of?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can’t explain why genocide is wrong. I simply think that it is wrong. Okay. It is your turn now. As an absolutist, explain how you conclude that genocide is wrong?

That you need this explained to you, and that you cannot explain it yourself, is chilling. And very, very sad.

 

[midcan5]

Iraq was about so many things real and imagined that a Martian would have wondered if they had found intelligent life.


21 reasons and their claimants. Good graphic of who and what.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2679

 

[mattskramer]

Two non politicians with no power and no authority. I will wait for you to explain how Bush or any of his political appointees ever said it. And maybe you could explain how it is President Bush announced that he was taking action so that Iraq and Saddam Hussein would NOT become an imminent threat.

I won't hold my breath waiting.

But hey at least YOU found someone that actually used the word, rather then retard Shogun.

I guess next you will quote where democrats used the word since they are in our Government also, ehh?

Okay. So I did not find where a Bush team member used the exact phrase “immanent threat” but words and phrases perfectly synonymous to it were often used. Just read

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Iraq_as_an_imminent_threat

 

[mattskramer]

That you need this explained to you, and that you cannot explain it yourself, is chilling. And very, very sad.

You already explained your reason why genocide is wrong. See post 83. I’m still waiting for you to explain, as an absolutist: why should people not murder innocent people who are not a threat?

 

[Shogun]

hehehe..


And watching this crowd pretend otherwise is a fucking riot!


from cheneys "hit us again" comment to Rice's constant reminder of WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION it sure is a fucking joke when RGS tries to dance around one phrase. I coulda swore he accuses Larkin of this shit almost every day.


This hindsight look at the WMD run up to the iraq invasion kinda makes one wonder how high was the hurdle for Japan when their enemy CLEARLY wanted to try out some nifty new bombs..

 

[M14 Shooter]

You already explained your reason why genocide is wrong. See post 83. I’m still waiting for you to explain, as an absolutist: why should people not murder innocent people who are not a threat?

The obvuous answer is 'that -should- be plain on its face'.

But...take the reasons you and I have given for declaring it is wrong, 'in out opinion' and then think of them as absolutes rather than relative depending on the society.

 

[mattskramer]

The obvuous answer is 'that -should- be plain on its face'.

But...take the reasons you and I have given for declaring it is wrong, 'in out opinion' and then think of them as absolutes rather than relative depending on the society.

I think that I undersatnd “where you are coming from” but if you explain ethical positions as just a given, then how can you criticize someone who might say that “Mutually concenting adult couples should be allowed to get married no matter if they are of the opposite or the same sex”? It is simply a universal absolute.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that I undersatnd “where you are coming from” but if you explain ethical positions as just a given,

The "given" isnt any particular attitude, the but the idea that some attitutes are valid regardless of corcumstance -- that is, certain are always right or worng, regardless of who is committing that act or what society he lives in.

The fact that some people might think that raping and torturing babies for fun is OK doesnt make it Ok to rape and torture babies for fun.

Consider this:
South Africa used to practice Apartheid. Apartheid was the socirtal norm.
If you are right, and morality is relative - What standing did the rest of the world have to force South Africa to give it up?
You opposed opposed the world's efforts to force them to give it up - right?

 

[mattskramer]

The "given" isnt any particular attitude, the but the idea that some attitutes are valid regardless of corcumstance -- that is, certain are always right or worng, regardless of who is committing that act or what society he lives in.

The fact that some people might think that raping and torturing babies for fun is OK doesnt make it Ok to rape and torture babies for fun.

Consider this:
South Africa used to practice Apartheid. Apartheid was the socirtal norm.
If you are right, and morality is relative - What standing did the rest of the world have to force South Africa to give it up?
You opposed opposed the world's efforts to force them to give it up - right?

I think that apartheid is wrong. Yet, is it wrong because most of the world thinks that it is wrong? If so, then right and wrong is merely based on little more than popular vote. Does might (economic and physical force) make something right. If so, then what America thinks is right must be right because America is strong. Also, Hitler must have been right in what he did for Germany and the German people. Is it wrong because it is a universal absolute? That does not really answer the question. It is like saying that it is wrong because it is wrong. In answering your question, I would put economic pressure on nations to support the end of apartheid. I simply believe that apartheid is wrong.

My interest is more in how we come to know what is right and wrong. Is it genetics? Some animals seem to do good things (by our standards) and some animals seem to be cruel. Is it learned? If so, then we are merely appealing to an authority that might be right or wrong? Is it by circumstances and experiences? If so, time and circumstances change.

I just don’t agree with the “universal absolutes”. It seems like a convenient cop-out that does not answer the question. It is circular reasoning and simply says that it something is wrong because it is wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think that apartheid is wrong. Yet, is it wrong because most of the world thinks that it is wrong? If so, then right and wrong is merely based on little more than popular vote. Does might (economic and physical force) make something right. If so, then what America thinks is right must be right because America is strong. Also, Hitler must have been right in what he did for Germany and the German people. Is it wrong because it is a universal absolute? That does not really answer the question. It is like saying that it is wrong because it is wrong. In answering your question, I would put economic pressure on nations to support the end of apartheid. I simply believe that apartheid is wrong.

That's what I am asking.
If there are no universal abolsutes, with right and wrong depending on the society itself, what standing did the world (or at least part of it) have to force SA to end Apartheid?

I just don’t agree with the “universal absolutes”. It seems like a convenient cop-out that does not answer the question. It is circular reasoning and simply says that it something is wrong because it is wrong.

No. Its saying that something is wrong because of X, and its wrong because of X regarless if a particular society disagrees.

 

[mattskramer]

That's what I am asking.
If there are no universal abolsutes, with right and wrong depending on the society itself, what standing did the world (or at least part of it) have to force SA to end Apartheid?


No. Its saying that something is wrong because of X, and its wrong because of X regarless if a particular society disagrees.

There was no standing that the world had in order to force SA to end apartheid except for the fact that more and more people thought that apartheid was wrong. Those people who thought it was wrong had influence through speech, economic activity, and possibly the threat of violence.

I guess that I don’t grasp this notion of universal absolutes. I don’t know of any way to prove that it exists. It seems like merely a human invention. Anyone can use it to claim that what he thinks to be right or wrong is right or wrong.

I think that apartheid is wrong regardless of time and circumstances. That is my opinion. I might be right or I might be wrong. If I were to go further and say that because of this, it is a universal absolute would be a sign of arrogance.

I ask you: How is a particular value determined to be a universal absolute ethic. Is it simply defined as something that seems to be right or wrong outside of public opinion, time, and circumstances? Could it be that universal absolutes exist and that we simply have not found them or know all examples of them? Years ago, slavery was not considered to be a universal absolute. Is allowing a woman to vote an absolute? It was not considered to be right many years ago.

 

[Shogun]

Im glad you both finally brought up South Africa...


Ok, so if it was wrong for Aparthied practices in South Africa...


a·part·heid audio (-pärtht, -ht) KEY

NOUN:

1. An official policy of racial segregation formerly practiced in the Republic of South Africa, involving political, legal, and economic discrimination against nonwhites.
2. A policy or practice of separating or segregating groups.
3. The condition of being separated from others; segregation.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/apartheid


then is it not ALSO wrong for Israel to do the same with the Pals?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There was no standing that the world had in order to force SA to end apartheid except for the fact that more and more people thought that apartheid was wrong. Those people who thought it was wrong had influence through speech, economic activity, and possibly the threat of violence.

I see.
So, right and wrong is determined by the strength of those that support a particualr point of view, and those with more power can impose their view of right and wrong on those with less power. Right?

I guess that I don’t grasp this notion of universal absolutes. I don’t know of any way to prove that it exists. It seems like merely a human invention. Anyone can use it to claim that what he thinks to be right or wrong is right or wrong.

And, consequently, you allow for the possibility that there is a situation where raping and torturing babies for fun is not wrong.

I ask you: How is a particular value determined to be a universal absolute ethic. Is it simply defined as something that seems to be right or wrong outside of public opinion, time, and circumstances?

Objective morality is widely discussed. Have you heard or read anything about it?

 

[mattskramer]

I see.
So, right and wrong is determined by the strength of those that support a particualr point of view, and those with more power can impose their view of right and wrong on those with less power. Right?

Yes. When it “comes right down to it”, this is what we have.

Many people apply reasoning that has some sway with people. Self-preservation might be a reason to not kill innocent people: “We should not kill innocent people because some people might then think it okay to kill us”. Yet, reasoning can be faulty and deceptive. Also, some people will not listen to reason. I’m arguing that there is no absolutely sure way to know right from wrong. Therefore, we do what we can but, ultimately, as time has shown, might makes right (at least in the eyes of the popular or stronger person).

And, consequently, you allow for the possibility that there is a situation where raping and torturing babies for fun is not wrong.

Tentatively, until it is shown to me how raping and torturing babies is not always wrong, I will hold to the belief that it is wrong. By the way, doesn’t the Old Testament say that God condoned the killing of innocent babies? I think that there was even a passage about smashing children’s skulls against rocks.

Objective morality is widely discussed. Have you heard or read anything about it?

Yes. I’ve read about it several years ago. I doubt that I ever fully understood it. I might read about it some more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. When it “comes right down to it”, this is what we have.

Might equals right?

Tentatively, until it is shown to me how raping and torturing babies is not always wrong, I will hold to the belief that it is wrong.

That you cannot declare such a thing absolutely wrong necessitates that there is a condition under which you would find such a thing morally acceptable.

Under what argument might you agree that raping and torturing babies for fun is not wrong?

Yes. I’ve read about it several years ago. I doubt that I ever fully understood it. I might read about it some more.

It woudl be a good thing for you to look into.

 

[Shogun]

Might equals right?


that seems to be the consensus among conservatives on this board when discussing Israel and Palestine...

 

[mattskramer]

Might equals right?

No, but as a convention, people act as if it does.

That you cannot declare such a thing absolutely wrong necessitates that there is a condition under which you would find such a thing morally acceptable.

Under what argument might you agree that raping and torturing babies for fun is not wrong?

Think logically. That I cannot declare such a thing absolutely wrong does not necessitate that there is a condition under which I would find such a thing morally acceptable. It does suggest that such a scenario might exist that I have not found.

No. I have not come up with an argument where I might agree that raping and torturing babies for fun is not wrong. That does not mean that such a scenario does or does not exist. It might merely reflect that I have lack of an imagination or deep thinking skills.

It would be a good thing for you to look into.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, but as a convention, people act as if it does.

Well, if might doesnt decide right, then we're back to 'what standing did the rest of the world have to act against South Africa'?

Think logically. That I cannot declare such a thing absolutely wrong does not necessitate that there is a condition under which I would find such a thing morally acceptable.

Sure it does.
"It is abolsutely wrong" - there is no condition where it is not wrong.
"It is not absolutely wrong" - there is a condition where it is not wrong.
If a scenario exists, as you suggst it might, this also necessitates that there is a condition where it might not be wrong.
So, you MUST have a point where you would say 'OK, its not wrong to do this".

 

[Shogun]

Heres another one...


If it's OK for the US to nuke two cities and kill civilians that it considered hubs for Japan's war effort....


Is it any less morally constant for one of OUR enemies to do the same with, say, planes pointed at NEW YORK and the pentegon?