Posting Towards Gomorrah

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think it was two nights ago on the Daily Show where they interviewed that expert from the military on why Homosexuals should be kicked out of the armed forces? Did anyone else see it? It was priceless. I don't think I have ever seen an "expert" made to look more ridiculous.

Sadly, I missed it. I'll have to search for it on the net. Who did the interview?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A friend in law school engendered much discussion with this proposition:

The world would be a better place if there no religion.

He argued that on balance religion caused more harm and unrest than its absence. At the time I took the view that religion was the opiate of the masses, but that that was a good thing. Now I'm not so sure he didn't have it right.

I will say this and let everyone draw their own conclusions. More blood has been spilled in the name of God (in whatever form) than from any other cause. This is true for the entirety of human civilzation and it continues today.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Sadly, I missed it. I'll have to search for it on the net. Who did the interview?

Jason Jones. It was pretty funny. Espeically the whistle.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I will say this and let everyone draw their own conclusions. More blood has been spilled in the name of God (in whatever form) than from any other cause. This is true for the entirety of human civilzation and it continues today.

That was the core of his argument.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I will say this and let everyone draw their own conclusions. More blood has been spilled in the name of God (in whatever form) than from any other cause. This is true for the entirety of human civilzation and it continues today.

Ah, yes, but the blood spilled in the name of God wasn't always spilled for her benefit.

Many a dynastic war or an imperial conquest has been dressed up with religion but driven by secular ambition.

Also, what does this have to do with tax policy?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That was the core of his argument.

That's why I believe in God, but the only house I worship in is mine.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Ah, yes, but the blood spilled in the name of God wasn't always spilled for her benefit.

Many a dynastic war or an imperial conquest has been dressed up with religion but driven by secular ambition.

Also, what does this have to do with tax policy?

I would argue that blood in never actually spilled for God's benefit.

And as for your last point, churches are tax-exempt. Duh, assclam!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Not surprisingly, the message sailed right over your head.

You guys always claim this and I thought by taking direct quotes and discussing them, that you wouldn't try using this ridiculous claim. And the quotes I used where at the heart of the authors arguments and summarize his main points. Where my quotes wrong? Which quote did I misuse? Which quotes did I use that were not central to his thesis? This is an easy statement to make, but a difficult one to support.

Originally posted by taxwonk
The point was that the use of extreme measures may be justified by an individual actor, basing the decision on his conscience and his willingness to have the courage of his convictions.

It would help if you used quotes and then explained them. Othewise you could argue that this passage is some sort of Alien code. Eventhough what you said was different from what the author said, it was just as ridiculous. The morality of an action that a person (as you say an "actor") takes is not based on the fact if his consicence told him it was OK and if he had the "willingness of his convictions". If a man tortures an innocent child to death. It is just wrong. Whether or not is was based on his conscience or whether or not he had the "willingness of his convictions". Similary torturing a terrorist to get information that will lead to saving an innocent child is the right thing to do regardless of whether the perpectraitor of the action did it based on his conscience or if the actor had the "willingness of their convictions"

Originally posted by taxwonk
You seldom display much of either.

I don't have the courage of my convictions? You say extreme measures may be justified in certain circumstances but don't want it put in writing because it might hurt your conscience. Because you are unwilling to face the fact that you believe that torture is justified in certain circumstances, you are willing to let a brave CIA agent be punished for doing the right thing instead of facing the glaring inconsistencies in your own moral framework.

Originally posted by taxwonk
When the state sanctions torture, it renders inconsequential an action that should be measured against the full measure of the consequences and the benefits. It cheapens the action and the actor. In doing so, it increases the likelihood that torture will be used and and the likelihood that it will be used inappropriately.

Imprisoning someone and taking away their freedom is indeed a harsh and terrible thing to have to do to someone. Maybe if we make it illegal for police to capture and imprison people then maybe such actions by the state will "be measured against the full measure of consequences and the benefits". If cops have to face prosecution for holding someone to face prosecution we will know that we are only capturing people that really deserve it. That way we will only imprison someone when we have fully taken in the ramifications of our actions.

Of course many brave police officers will have to go jail, and we will make their lives a great deal more difficult, but in order to have the courage of our convictions, that all men should be free and have liberty, we need to conduct our system this way.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
A friend in law school engendered much discussion with this proposition:

The world would be a better place if there no religion.

He argued that on balance religion caused more harm and unrest than its absence. At the time I took the view that religion was the opiate of the masses, but that that was a good thing. Now I'm not so sure he didn't have it right.

Watch what you wish for......nature abhors a vaccuum...are you sure the hypotehtical alternative that would fill the void would not be worse????


eta: ps: How do you know that some hypothetical version of God is not true? and thus religion was inevitable. Set in motion by intelligent design.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Watch what you wish for......nature abhors a vaccuum...are you sure the hypotehtical alternative that would fill the void would not be worse????


eta: ps: How do you know that some hypothetical version of God is not true? and thus religion was inevitable. Set in motion by intelligent design.

1) That is a fair point, and why I took the opiate of the masses approach.

2) I think I should have expressed it as "organized religion", which gets at Wonk's approach. It's not that God in itself causes the problems, it's that the worship of God through an organized structure (or even in a coordinated fashion) has let to a lot of bloodshed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Sadly, I missed it. I'll have to search for it on the net. Who did the interview?

I don't remember the guy who did the interview. They guy made comments like "our soliders have enough to worry about without being lustily leered at". The whole story started with a blurb about how desperate the army was to get fluent Arab speakers, and that one of it top interpreters, a guy with an impeccable record who had decoded a lot of terrorist messages, committed an unspeakable crime that gave the Army no choice but to expel one of its most valuable members.......Classic...

If you find it definitely post it, it was one of the best things I have ever seen on the daily show.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I would argue that blood in never actually spilled for God's benefit.

And as for your last point, churches are tax-exempt. Duh, assclam!

As for your first point, what about blood spilled by the martyrs? When Moses spilled blood was it not for God's benefit?

As for your second point, in Utah they tithe.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
That's why I believe in God, but the only house I worship in is mine.

I also worship at the Crazy Horse Too in Vegas.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Bush lied!

:trout:

Bush was right!

:jedi:

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys always claim this and I thought by taking direct quotes and discussing them, that you wouldn't try using this ridiculous claim. And the quotes I used where at the heart of the authors arguments and summarize his main points. Where my quotes wrong? Which quote did I misuse? Which quotes did I use that were not central to his thesis? This is an easy statement to make, but a difficult one to support.



It would help if you used quotes and then explained them. Othewise you could argue that this passage is some sort of Alien code. Eventhough what you said was different from what the author said, it was just as ridiculous. The morality of an action that a person (as you say an "actor") takes is not based on the fact if his consicence told him it was OK and if he had the "willingness of his convictions". If a man tortures an innocent child to death. It is just wrong. Whether or not is was based on his conscience or whether or not he had the "willingness of his convictions". Similary torturing a terrorist to get information that will lead to saving an innocent child is the right thing to do regardless of whether the perpectraitor of the action did it based on his conscience or if the actor had the "willingness of their convictions"



I don't have the courage of my convictions? You say extreme measures may be justified in certain circumstances but don't want it put in writing because it might hurt your conscience. Because you are unwilling to face the fact that you believe that torture is justified in certain circumstances, you are willing to let a brave CIA agent be punished for doing the right thing instead of facing the glaring inconsistencies in your own moral framework.



Imprisoning someone and taking away their freedom is indeed a harsh and terrible thing to have to do to someone. Maybe if we make it illegal for police to capture and imprison people then maybe such actions by the state will "be measured against the full measure of consequences and the benefits". If cops have to face prosecution for holding someone to face prosecution we will know that we are only capturing people that really deserve it. That way we will only imprison someone when we have fully taken in the ramifications of our actions.

Of course many brave police officers will have to go jail, and we will make their lives a great deal more difficult, but in order to have the courage of our convictions, that all men should be free and have liberty, we need to conduct our system this way.

The point I was trying to make, and that I thought the letter amplified, is that although there may be the rare situation where torture is the lesser of two evils, this does not mean that the rules should be changed to make torture OK. It means that when someone feels driven to violate rules against torture, sometimes in retrospect this will seem to have been the proper decision.