Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Wrongo.

The most fervent "followers" of the baby jesus in our modern American body politic seem to focus on the Old Testament (and perhaps Revelations) to the exclusion of the Gospels. The Bible is pretty clear that Christ was a socialist.

[Indeed, one of Penske's earlier sig lines alluded to this concept.]

Fortunately for all of us, he's a big tent kind of guy.

S_A_M

Nonetheless

Wow. Good points. Maybe you're right!

But, spank, just in case sam is wrong, remind me to make a toast of blessed mead to Sam, once you and I are part of the heavenly multitudes.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
Both Hitler and Stalin believed that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few".

Stalin most surely did not. (Not sure about Hitler.)

Look at actions, not words or abstract philosophies to which they purportedly subscribed.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
When I was born, my father’s best friend (who happens to be a Jewish doctor) convinced my father that I should be circumcised. That from a hygienic stand point this was a good thing. However, I was reading an article that said that that circumcision not only does not provide any real health benefits, but that the victim of the act does not enjoy sex as much. In other words, because of the loss of the foreskin, circumcised males do not derive as much pleasure from sex as their uncircumcised brethren. !!!!!!!!!.

You shoud thank him, nonetheless. Uncircumcised penises are just nasty looking.

S_A_M

[eta: Just doing my part to elevate the tone.]

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Wrongo.

The most fervent "followers" of the baby jesus in our modern American body politic seem to focus on the Old Testament (and perhaps Revelations) to the exclusion of the Gospels. The Bible is pretty clear that Christ was a socialist.

[Indeed, one of Penske's earlier sig lines alluded to this concept.]

Fortunately for all of us, he's a big tent kind of guy.

S_A_M

Nonetheless

Don't overestimate his open armed tolerance in life with the judgment of his Dad after death. That is a moral relativistic liberal perversion.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Hell, yes, it is a public benefit. You ever been in RFK?

More so that a damn shopping mall.

S_A_M

More so than a shopping center, but that is a low standard. Pro-sports are a deplorable public benefit, akin to nothing more than a memorial park to fatslobcommierabblerouserdemofriend Michael Moore.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If you mean what you say here, I'm not sure what you think the term "moral relativism" means. I think that the lack of definition is hampering your conversation with Wonk -- though I'm really not sure why Wonk started this with Penske.

PoPD. It was a hand off from someone else, like Begala handing off a project to Carville.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man


Your statement is not coherent. Moreover, think of the true pacifists you have known, (personnaly or though the media or history books) and consider whether you think they are actually moral relativists.

BS. The Cindy Sheehan/Soros/Moveon crowd didn't have the complaints about Clinton that they do of Bush.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
You shoud thank him, nonetheless. Uncircumcised penises are just nasty looking.

S_A_M

[eta: Just doing my part to elevate the tone.]

And how much looking are you doing? Nttawwt.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
BS. The Cindy Sheehan/Soros/Moveon crowd didn't have the complaints about Clinton that they do of Bush.

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Who thinks that Cindy Sheehan is a true pacifist, expressing a well-defined philosophy developed after significant moral reflection?

I don't know whether Soros is a pacifist, and there is no evidence that MoveOn.org is a pacifist organization. IIRC -- MoveOn was founded to develop a progressive movement to oppose Bush, not to end the war.

You surely know that opposition to The Bush administration and/or the War in Iraq does not equate to pacifism or, for that matter, moral relativism.

For once, cut the crap.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And how much looking are you doing? Nttawwt.

Doesn't take much. npi. nttawwt. fwiw.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Don't overestimate his open armed tolerance in life with the judgment of his Dad after death. That is a moral relativistic liberal perversion.

So, the Jews and Muslims have it right, then . . . Christ was just a prophet/holy man?

Or, is he truly the path to salvation? If you believe the latter, your argument doesn't work.

S_A_M

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Exactly. Truth and moral values are relative to the persons or groups holding them. I think truth and values are universal. You believe that truth and values are relative to the person or group holding them.

That is the $64,000 question, isn't it. I believe that, like Jefferson, that the creator has already decided when killing is wrong or right. We just need to figure out what that is. I think we have been given a road map to deciding when it is or is not OK. I think our instincts tell us when something is right or wrong. We are hard wired with a conscious that guides us in these situations. Our pursuit of justice is trying to align our legal system with the universal moral code that is hard wired in our brain. As human being we just know that Seti, female circumscission and slavery are wrong, we just need to insure that our legal system reflects our moral instincts.

The common good can get you into trouble. However, this is a discussion that will turn on what is just. But when "what is just" is determined, I believe justice is the same for all men and women and that it is not "relative to the persons or groups holding them".

Perhaps this definition is more closely aligned with what I mean by relativism:

Relativism

n : (philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved

The source is Dictionary.com

I can't accept your philosophy.

In the first place, I think it's inconsistent to argue that a universal moral code is instinctual and that it comes from God. But setting that aside, if man's sense of right and wrong is instinctual, then it would not need to be learned, which has been a cornerstone of your argument all along.

Finally, man has consistently moved away from instinctual to learned behaviors. This is widely asserted to be what separates us from the other animals, our ability to learn and reason. If right and wfrong were isntincutal, then we would see a common acceptance of your universal moral code from the beginning. If anything, history would demonstrate a pattern of moving from behaviors that are more moral in the past to more decadent in the present, as our society moved from more primitive to more developed, or at least a consistent, higher morality from the beginning forward. I think we would agree that the opposite situation has in fact occurred.

While I agree that we have a general moral code that is more respectful of human rights and of human life than many other societies, we are faced with a paradox. How can we force our superior moral code on others without violating the very rights that we profess to be enforcing?

If we use military pressure to force those societies that practice savery to cease, are we enslaving them? If we invade Iraq to "bring democracy" to the oppressed Iraqis, is our forced conversion not undemocratic?

You cannot claim that all people everywhere have the same rights and are subject to the sme moral code and then break that code to force them to adopt it. That is why I am a relativist.

I agree that the regime in Iraq was evil and had to come down. I just don't accept that that was the true motiviation for our going in. I'm also very sceptical that Iraq was as great a catalyst in fomenting Islamist terrorism as it has become in the wake of our invasion.

Right cause, wrong reason.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
If you mean what you say here, I'm not sure what you think the term "moral relativism" means. I think that the lack of definition is hampering your conversation with Wonk --

Wonk has already defined moral relativism and I accepted his definition. For the upteenth time moral relativism is:

rel·a·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Your statement is not coherent. Moreover, think of the true pacifists you have known, (personnaly or though the media or history books) and consider whether you think they are actually moral relativists.

S_A_M

P.S. God told Bush to tell Clinton to tell me to say that.

I already said that Ghandi was not a moral relativist.

However, when considering most of the pacifists that I know they think they are moral relativists. My sister is one of them. The same people that like to say that we should not impose "western values" on other people are the same people that seem to believe in nonviolence. The same people that think it is abhorent to try and impose our values in Iraq are the same people that freak out over Chinas treatment of Tibet.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man though I'm really not sure why Wonk started this with Penske.

Penske seems to get all the attention from the liberals. It is very difficult to get noticed around here.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Stalin most surely did not. (Not sure about Hitler.)

Look at actions, not words or abstract philosophies to which they purportedly subscribed.

S_A_M

Are you kidding?
I am looking at actions. Stalin murdered millions of Russians to benefit Russia as a whole. Almost every action he took showed that he believed that anything was justifiable as long as it benefit the many (the state).

Hitler on the other hand that statement may not be entirely correct. He believed anything was OK as long as it benefitted the German people (that is not necessarily the same as the many). He planned to kill off all the Slavic people and they outnumbered the Germans.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I have stated my position on that one here several times, but saving a mother's life does not fall into "the burden of caring for the child is beyond the mother's economic, emotional..... resources".

If being beyond economic or emotional resources is an acceptable standard then killing a 4 year old would be as justified and morally acceptable as killing a 4 month old unborn child.

That's valid if life begins at conception. I don't accept that premise. Furthermore, there is a difference between a medical treatment to prevent an event from occurring and the act of killing a four year-old.

Affirmative homicide aside, we make choices between one life and another all the time in the allocation of scarce resources. Ask anyone on an organ donor list.

We also make economic allocation resource decisions that may affect human life on a daily basis. I show up at the hospital with angina and I'm rushed into the operating room for an angioplasty at once. The waitress at a place I eat a lot has heart trouble but she doesn't have health insurance. She waited six months to have her angioplasty done at County.

I generally don't favor abortion. But I also believe that each decision to abort or not is so particular to the mother and the fetus that the procedure is not susceptible to regulation by the state or federal government. So you could say that, while I'm generally anti-abortion, I'm also pro-choice.

By declaring itself pro-life, the anti-abortion movement hurts itself by coming off as hypocritical and by politicizing what is a social, not a governmental problem.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2. I think we've all been impressed how you've used logical constructs to show there are inconsistant positions across the body of Penske's posts.

Now if only we could get Penske to see it and adjust his posting style accordingly, I think this would be a better place.