I don't really get the question.

But if you believe in a universal moral code then there is nothing wrong with imposing your values on another country or people, just as long as they are the right values.

In other words, Nazis imposing their values on the rest of Europe = bad. Our imposing democratic values on Japan, Germany and Iraq = good.

Our pressuring other countries to adopt democratic and human rights = good. Our pressuring other countrys to torture prisoners = maybe not so good.

But imposing your values in itself it not a bad thing.

I state this because on of the most annoying comments of all time has got to be "what gives us the right to impose our values on other people".

Answer = if they are the right values then I believe it is our duty to impose our values on other cultures (for example pressuring other countrys to accept human rights) but if they are the wrong values, then it is really immoral for us to impose our values (for example making other countrys dismantle their environmental laws).

Like I said, the term illegal only makes sense if the two of us agree on the same legal code. The terms wrong or immoral only have "status" if we both assume that we agree on the same moral code.

You must not only believe in a UMC, you also must believe that the UMC has been fully revealed to you, and not to others.

The technical term for this is Chutzpah.

I guess Amnesty International has a lot of Chutzpah. And I am glad they do.

Exactly.

But that does not mean we view Amnesty International as possessing the revealed truth. I do not plan to make an alter to Amnesty International. In fact, I plan on disagreeing with them some of the time.

Even a Chutzpahnik can have some humility.

I had dinner with Slave last night and he said two things

1) I wasting everyone's time with this UMC B.S.

2) I have turned into a RINO (Republican in Name Only). I have capitulated to the enemy making Hank the only true conservative left on the board.

My response is that

1) without the UMC talk to board would be dead. And it is an interesting subject to me, and since it is all about me, that is enough.

2) When did I capitulate?

Many of those suggesting you are a RINO are themselves taking positions that would have been well out of step with Eisenhower or Nixon Republicans. I do not believe Republican = Fiscal and Social Conservative, regardless of what Mr. DeLay's interpretation of the UMC is.

I don't know what you are trying to say here. They definitely think that human rights are universal. So they believe in a UMC and they believe they know at least what some of it says. And they are so confident they are right that they are willing to impose their views on the whole world.

A belief in a UMC does not require an alter being made to anyone. In fact, in my opinion alters and the UMC are completely unrelated.



From my point of view, human rights are universal and they were given to us by our creator. I like the fact that Amnesty International is working to enforce the UMC. Without a UMC their actions do not make sense.

Tom Delay and I both agree on the existence of the UMC. However, I think he has got it wrong on many parts. That is why I am trying to take him out: to stop him from him imposing his version of the UMC on America, and so I can put someone in who will promote a view of the UMC that I agree with more.

Why do actions not make sense without a UMC? All we can do is choose what we think is the best path, not knowing where it leads.

Tell Slave to shove his pontificating up his ass.

A RINO is every bit a conservative as a social conservative. In fact, we RINOs are MORE conservative than our socially involved counterparts. A conservative believes in less govt interference. If you buy into the social consservative movement, you are asking Uncle Sam to play moral policeman on personal, private issues. Doesn't sound very conservative to me. Sounds pretty fucking liberal.

RINO is one of those terms used buy a small, angry group of conservatives who are very afraid their death grip on the GOP is failing, and we're heading toward a more tolerant/more strictly fiscally concerned GOP.

RINO is a desperate term, used by desperate people who find themselves a smaller and smaller voice in a tent that gets bigger and bigger everyday.

The dumb sons of bitches who favor that term don't realize that without the moderate fiscal conservatives they bitch about, the GOP wouldn't have any power. But thats the problem with absolutists. Its wasted breath to even discuss compromise and negotiation with them. They know everything. "Stand on principle!" Bunch of two bit Capt Ahabs if you ask me...

Here’s a novel idea... How about letting people decide for themselves? How about setting some base rules (which do, I agree, tend to follow the 10 commandments), and letting people sort out the more personal, smaller moral issues themselves. How about observing some deference to the natural law that a man ought to be able to do as he likes in a free society, save behaviors which do harm to others?

I don't want to live under your or Tom's UMC. I prefer my own. Why do I have to follow someone else's?

Arguments about right and wrong don't make sense without a UMC.

Organizations like Amnesty International don't make sense without a UMC.

Involvement in politicis where you are trying to promote certain policies or ideas to be adopted by the whole body politic don't make sense without a UMC. (unless you are doing it purely out of self interest). But if you pushing for policies and political change that doesn't benefit you, and effects other people, you are really imposing what you think is right on other people. And that only makes sense if you believe in a UMC.

Most people (most often liberals) when they get upset about other people imposing their values on the world, are really upset because they don't like the values. If they liked the values they wouldn't complain. When it comes to our imposing women's rights around the world all of a sudden imposing our values is not wrong.

So instead of trying to argue that we shouldn't impose our values on other people or cultures (which is really what the process is all about) they should argue that the wrong values are imposed.

The argument that we shouldn't impose our values on Iraq is mainly asserted by people who think the war was a bad idea for other reasons. They just use that as another reason to critisize the war, but it is a lame argument. Especiall the argument that we should not impose democracy in Iraq.

The only time the argument about critisizing imposing democracy in Iraq is valid, is when someone argues that if we impose a democracy it will fall apart, there will be a civil war and more people will die and you still won't get a democracy. That is a valid criticism. However, the question arises, since we are not in charge, if we don't impose a democracy what do we impose?

That's one meaning. It's not the only one. Semantics are all relative.

(1) Sure they do. Arguments can be about exploring an issue rather than winning and losing.

(2) You need the rest of the syllogism or you do not have a meaningful statement.

(3) Why not? I can believe in what is right without knowing, and without even knowing that there is a right or wrong. You should read some Spinoza.