Waiting for Fitzgerald

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
And in what cultures and in what circumstances do we have these rights.

In this country, right now. For example, the court decided that Terri Schiavo had a right to have her feeding tube removed, that being her choice as communicated through her ex-husband. A more simple example would be Less's right to drink himself to death.

I never said you did defend genocide. I am saying that you can't critize Genocide if you are a moral relativist. Moral relativists believe that differenct morals and rules are appropriate for different cultures and countrys. Some morals and rules works in some cultures and don't work in other cultures. Therefore it is wrong for one culture to impose its values on another culture.

That is why moral relativists think our invasion of Iraq is so heinous, because we are trying to impose "western values" on Iraq. I don't believe in western values. I think if values exist they are universal. I don't think morals are relative. I think they are universal to all cultures and countrys.

Genocide is an absolute wrong. A moral relativist would say that Genocide could be OK, it just depends on which culture you are talking about.

I think you are confusing moral relativsim with the fact that moral codes (and legal codes) have to be sophisticated and complicated. But that does not make them any less universal or important.

If you are a moral relativist and don't believe in a universal moral code, then you have to be open to the fact that Genocide might be appropriate to certain cultures at different times.

You presume to tell me what I have to believe and call me arrogant? If you want to know what I believe, ask me, don't presume to tell me.

I previously posted defintions of both absolutism and relativism. I think your posts have established that you aren't really an absolutist. They have clearly established you have at best a misguided notion of relativism.

Had you bothered to ask me what I believe in, or where I stand on issues, you might have established that we agree on many specific policies and issues. Maybe we can have that conversation one of these days. Then Hank won't have to leave.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
That's murder. W had better be right about murder, its this type of thinking on the left that makes the demise of Roe the most imperative of all goals in the furtherance of humanity.

Why is abortion any more murder than prohibiting abortion to save the life of the mother?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In this country, right now. For example, the court decided that Terri Schiavo had a right to have her feeding tube removed, that being her choice as communicated through her ex-husband.

Translation: The democrat party entered into a conspiracy with the person who had the most to gain from her murder to kill her.

I hope no one here ever ends up in a temporary coma and living in a culture of death locale. Unless Hillary is here, then what comes around goes around. Hopefully.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
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.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by taxwonk

ab·so·lut·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bs-ltzm)
n.

A political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority.
A form of government in which all power is vested in a single ruler or other authority.
An absolute doctrine, principle, or standard.

I think your definitionis the last one.

I am not a moral relativist. I believe morals are universal. By absolute I mean they apply to everyone. Just like our law apply to everyone. There are no exceptions for race color or creed. In other words a universal moral code. The word universal is better than absolute.

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.

I never said you did. These pro-life people think it does, and that is what leads them to their often violent opposition to abortion. I do not believe life begins at coneption.

I don't think any of these things you have said bear a relation to whether or not it is innocent. To me an innocent person is someone who has not committed a crime. Or intentionally violated the universal moral code. A zygote, just like an infant is innocent. Spanky (that is me) is not innocent.

If carrying the Zygote to term will kill the mother, that does not mean the zygot is not innocent, but this may be a circumstance when killing an innocent life is necessary. I don't think that if the burden of carrying the innocent life to term is beyond the resources of the mother is an excuse for terminating an innocent life (althought I don't know what that really means. Does that mean she only has enough money for food to keep herself alive if she does not carry the child). However, if you mean that the mother may not have the resources to care for the child once it is born, that is not an excuse for killing an innocent life. You can't use this excuse for killing the child after it is born so why should you be able to use it to kill the child before it is born.

I have never claimed that it is never acceptable to kill an innocent person.


[Quote}If you want to get into a discussion about right and wrong OK. But if you are a moral relativist this discussion is fruitless. We both have to agree that there is such a thing as right and wrong. And that right and wrong apply universally. If you are a moral relativist then we have to acknowledge that rights and wrongs can change from culture to culture and time to time. Right now by initiated this discussion you are assuming there is a universal moral code and we should debate what it includes.

Originally posted by taxwonk I think this is absolutely wrong.

You just pointed out that the definition of relative is "moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.". So any discussion of morality depends on the group of people we are discussing. Killing widows may be wrong for one group of people but OK for another. So a shelling of innocent people in an Iraq village has to take in account what the local values and morals are. We need to see what is historically OK in Iraq and not impose our "western" or American values on the situation.

Originally posted by taxwonk But what about the innocents? On what basis are we to decide that it is okay to sacrifice their lives? I guess it's a question of which is relatively the greater good for the community at large?

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".

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Why is abortion any more murder than prohibiting abortion to save the life of the mother?

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.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky


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.
".

Exactly, and that is the Creator's intelligent design.

Originally posted by Spanky


If carrying the Zygote to term will kill the mother, that does not mean the zygot is not innocent, but this may be a circumstance when killing an innocent life is necessary. I don't think that if the burden of carrying the innocent life to term is beyond the resources of the mother is an excuse for terminating an innocent life (althought I don't know what that really means. Does that mean she only has enough money for food to keep herself alive if she does not carry the child). However, if you mean that the mother may not have the resources to care for the child once it is born, that is not an excuse for killing an innocent life. You can't use this excuse for killing the child after it is born so why should you be able to use it to kill the child before it is born.

2. It is that type of rationale that leads us toward the abortion on demand no responsibility hell that NARAL and NOW and there allies in the demo party so fervently desire. I made a decicion/did an act (a dirty deed if you will) and got pregnant, but if I have this baby then that Porsche Boxster and vacation home in Cabo will be out of the picture, better abort. Twisted. I will pray for the souls of those poor dead unborn lives tonight.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In this country, right now. For example, the court decided that Terri Schiavo had a right to have her feeding tube removed, that being her choice as communicated through her ex-husband. A more simple example would be Less's right to drink himself to death.




You presume to tell me what I have to believe and call me arrogant? If you want to know what I believe, ask me, don't presume to tell me.

You already told me what you believe. You said you are a moral relativist. And you have shown me a definition of what a moral relativist is. I am just showing you what the logical conclusion of your stated beliefs are. If you have a problem with your stated beliefs, I am sorry. But you are the one that said you subscribed to them.

Originally posted by taxwonk I previously posted defintions of both absolutism and relativism. I think your posts have established that you aren't really an absolutist. They have clearly established you have at best a misguided notion of relativism.

I know exactly what moral relativsim is. At least I agree with your definition of it: 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 taxwonk Had you bothered to ask me what I believe in, or where I stand on issues, you might have established that we agree on many specific policies and issues. Maybe we can have that conversation one of these days. Then Hank won't have to leave.

This is what you said you believe: 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.

If truth or moral values are relative to the person holding them how can you critisize any actions until you understand their cultural background, beliefs etc. Following the Nazi's morality the final solution made perfect sense. The jews were an inferior race that was infecting the superior race and making it weak. The Jews needed to be exterminated for the health of the German population. Under their belief system, the Aryan race was superior, and its welfare was the only thing that mattered.

I don't have to care about any of this. All men are created equal and all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights. It does not matter if men are Jews, Arabs, Germans or Pygmies. Under the Universal Code the Genocide was a massive and abhorent violation and the slaughtering hundred of thousands of Nazis to stop it (and the slaughtering of even millions of innocents to stop the Genocide) was not only OK but a moral imperative.

I think you probably agree with me on this, but I think if you agree with me you are not really a moral relativist.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've been trying to elevate the discourse all week.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In this country, right now. For example, the court decided that Terri Schiavo had a right to have her feeding tube removed, that being her choice as communicated through her ex-husband. A more simple example would be Less's right to drink himself to death.

The courts and the people were trying to argue what the right thing to do here is. Our legal system has concluded that people, if their quality of life sucks, can let themselves die. That is just. I agree that that is Just. Many people in our society believe that people should not be allowed to commit suicide under any circumstances. I believe that is wrong. Some think under the moral code that one should not be able to ever control when they live or die. I disagree with them on what the universal moral code is. Both sides agree there is a universal moral code we just disagree on what it says.

[Spanky]

Up until recently, I have generally believed that the existence of Jews had not only benefited the world, but has greatly benefited the United States. If you look at the contribution of Jews in this country, in medicine, the arts, science etc., I think it is clear our quality of life in this country would be greatly diminished if so many Jews had not immigrated here. I have always believed that the US has been really lucky that most Jews have chosen this country as the place to emigrate to. I also believe that the Jews in the Republican Party hold a critical role, because with out them, the party might be totally controlled by the Christian Conservatives. The Republican Jewish Coalition in California has contributed greatly to pushing the Republican Party in California towards a rational and sensible path.

However, recent information has come to light that has made me question the benefit of Jewish influence in our society. Although some of you have not admitted this yet, it is clear that I am the epicenter of the Universe.

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. !!!!!!!!!.

Now I am beginning to question the benefits of Jewish influence in this country. Any thoughts before I start organizing a pogrom?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by taxwonk
In this country, right now. For example, the court decided that Terri Schiavo had a right to have her feeding tube removed, that being her choice as communicated through her ex-husband. A more simple example would be Less's right to drink himself to death.

Sorry. Schiavo doesn't equal Less. The analog would be if Less is passed out at the bar and Paigow is telling the bartender that the last thing he said was he wants 5 shots poured down his throat.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Up until recently, I have generally believed that the existence of Jews had not only benefited the world, but has greatly benefited the United States. If you look at the contribution of Jews in this country, in medicine, the arts, science etc., I think it is clear our quality of life in this country would be greatly diminished if so many Jews had not immigrated here. I have always believed that the US has been really lucky that most Jews have chosen this country as the place to emigrate to. I also believe that the Jews in the Republican Party hold a critical role, because with out them, the party might be totally controlled by the Christian Conservatives. The Republican Jewish Coalition in California has contributed greatly to pushing the Republican Party in California towards a rational and sensible path.

However, recent information has come to light that has made me question the benefit of Jewish influence in our society. Although some of you have not admitted this yet, it is clear that I am the epicenter of the Universe.

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. !!!!!!!!!.

Now I am beginning to question the benefits of Jewish influence in this country. Any thoughts before I start organizing a pogrom?

ironically, the most prolific Jewish poster here, Taxwonk, was not able to be circumsized.

They hadn't invented microsurgery yet! Ha!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
A more simple example would be Less's right to drink himself to death.

It is physically impossible for Less to drink himself to death. Less and I went to Mardi Gras a few years back and we stayed with a friend of mine from college. We concluded that Less was not human. He drank endless amounts of alcohol and never slept. After two days of trying to keep up with Less me and my college friend both ended up in the hospital, and Less kept "partying" right through fat tuesday.

[Penske_Account]

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.

2.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
The courts and the people were trying to argue what the right thing to do here is. Our legal system has concluded that people, if their quality of life sucks, can let themselves die. That is just. I agree that that is Just.

Sure, as long as the person to die has actually expressed the desire. In the Schiavo case the state and the husband conspired to impose their culturalist of death will on her. I know for me, if I was in a coma, the last two people I would want to decide my fate, absent my express verifiable expression related to the same, would be my wife and the state. The former has millions to gain by my demise and the latter has the tax revenue from the introduction of those millions into the economy. BIG CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Especially in my home state where the culture of death is the prevailing perversity and the statehouse was stolen by a Fraudoire.

Hank, if I end in a Schiavo like state, please direct the relevant authorities to this post before they can kill again.