Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This isn't politics, it's a philosophical debate. And I haven't destroyed anything. I've let your words speak for themselves.

Go back and look at the record, Penske. I have simply repeated your answers to my questions, and asked you to reconcile inconsistencies in what you said. You were the one who time and time again tried to throw the debate off track by posting political slogans and attacking the Democratic party.

Talk to me when you have answers and the balls to deal with me as a person instead of ranting about some ill-defined group of people you label the "enemy." I tire of your empty sloganeering.

Perhaps you lack the moral clarity of vision to discern the enemy when he or she has trojaned horsed themselves into your living room. Worse yet your lack of conviction to the 2nd Amendment will just imbolden their aggression against your natural rights. The babyjesi and I weep for that.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Quality also rests in your hands, Hank. I've been trying to elevate the discourse all week. Care to join me?

p.s. the Members' Boobies Thread now has butts, too.

And this is not PoPD? Hank is one of the most consistent contributors to this board, why attack his constructive criticism? Have you ever read TuckerMax? Regardless of your elevation, Hank makes a good point.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I didn't say that rights, law or mores come from a desire for people to get along. I am saying that laws, rights, mores, etc. must be balanced in order for people to survive.

You don't really believe this. Many of our rights don't help us survive. In fact many of our rights allow us to diminish the lenght of our lives.

Originally posted by taxwonk I believe that female circumcision, if it is done involuntarily, is wrong. It violates the principal (the more, if you will) that people should be free from unwanted invasions upon their person.

This has nothing to do with survival. And why should people be free from unwanted invasions upon their person? If you are forcing someone to take an antibiotic shot that will save their lives then such an invasion upon their person will help them survive.

Originally posted by taxwonk The same can be said of cultural customs of casting wives, servants, etc. in the funeral pyre of a dead male. (Interestingly, these customs tend only to be applied to the upper stratum of a culture.) This custom violates the more that it is wrong to take a human life.

What can be said about it? In a world of moral relativism who are you to critisize such practices? And if you do what is your rationalization for critisizing them?

Originally posted by taxwonk One could say that these are examples of actions that violate an absolute principal. However, how can we take action to prevent these violations of the principal if it is absolutely wrong to violate another's freedom of action or to take another's life?

This only poses a problem for people that have not fully thought through their moral framework. Many liberals and pacifists say it is absolutely wrong to kill anyone. If you believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill someone under any circumstances you are also a moral absolutist. I think this is an immoral position to take and actually violates the universal moral code.

Ghandi was a moral absolutist that believed in a universal moral code. I think his code is and was well intentioned, but improperly conceived and applied and leads to great evil.

I also believe that moral relativism leads to great evil. If morals change with the circumstance and the culture then there really aren't morals are there. In a moral relativist world you can not critisize the Germans for killing the Jews.

Only if you believe in moral absolutes and a higher law can you critisize the genocide of the jews. In Hitler's mind the Genocide was the moral thing to do, and he changed the laws to make it legal. He also argued that the Genocide was a necessary good for the German culture and German people. Many people that were involved in it thought it was the right thing to do. Only something so monstrous could be pulled of by people thinking they were doing the "right thing".

It is only in a culture that does not believe in universal human rights (and thereby a universal moral code) that such atrocities can occure. Both Hitler and Stalin believed that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few". With social engineering it is OK to sacrifice the rights of peopel to benefit the society as a whole. However, if you believe in a universal moral code, and believe like Jefferson that these rights come from our creator then you can't go around killing large number of people (infringing on their rights) because it benefits the majority of the people.

Most peole that I know that believe in a universal moral code believe that Genocide (or the intentional mass killing of innocnets) is one of the worst violations of the code and it is never OK under any circumstances.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
I never said killing was an absolute wrong. The only people that I know that have ever proposed something like this are pacifists and liberals - the same people that believe in moral relativism.

It is wrong to intentional kill innocent people. It is wrong to not kill someone if your choice is either killing them or letting them kill innocent people.

I think killing in certain circumstances is wrong, but in certain cirumstances is a moral imperative.

You are confusing absolute with simple, and are confusing relative with complex. The rules may be complex but they are absolute. Our legal system may getting more complicated all the time but it is not getting more relative. The laws in our legal system our absolute and not relative no matter how complicated they get.

When you say morals are relative you are saying that in certain circumstances it is OK to kill innocent people. Or that in some cutures it is OK to kill innocent people and not in others. Relative meams that morality can change with the circumstances. Absolute means that they do not.

Justs like our laws apply equally to all men and women all the time so does the universal moral code.

Look up the definition of absolute and then look up the definition of relative, Spank.

The pro-life movement rests largely upon the backs of people who base their opposition to abortion upon their belief that life begins at conception and all life is sacred. Even if I were to accept your modification that killing itself is not an absolute wrong, and I do, obviously, isn't "innocent" itself a relative term?

When we shell a village in Iraq, even if we take very effort to minimize collateral damage, we both know that innocent people will die. How is that not a choice that our life isn't worth more than theirs?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Look up the definition of absolute and then look up the definition of relative, Spank.

Don't get arrogant and ignorant on me.. Wonk. I already explained to you how I understood the definition and you did not. It is clear you are still confusing absolute with simple and relative with complicated. If I am a moral absolutist I do NOT have to believe that killing is either wrong or right in all circumstances. I can believe in an absolute moral code and believe killing is OK under certain circumstances in not OK in other. Just like I can believe in an absolute legal code where killing is legal in certain circumstances and not legal in others.

Originally posted by taxwonk The pro-life movement rests largely upon the backs of people who base their opposition to abortion upon their belief that life begins at conception and all life is sacred.

Many of the pro-life people do not beleive all life is sacred. In fact most don't. But they believe that it is wrong to kill innocent life. If a zygote is a life form then is it not also innocent? If you believe that life begins at conception, and you believe that it is wrong to kill an innocent life, then you need to be against abortion.

Originally posted by taxwonk Even if I were to accept your modification that killing itself is not an absolute wrong, and I do, obviously, isn't "innocent" itself a relative term?

Killing under certain circumstances is an absolute wrong and under other circumstances is an absolute right (or moral imperative). Most of them time intentionally killing an innocent life is wrong. Actually that has to be a inncent human life. But innocent is not a relative term. You just need to define it. In addition, there are exceptions when killing an innocent life is OK. Although I doubt there are very few when intentionally killing an innocent life is OK. However, if a plane full if innocent civilians has been highjacked and the plane is heading for one of the towers of the world trade center. I think it is OK to shoot it down and kill everyone on board.

Originally posted by taxwonk
When we shell a village in Iraq, even if we take very effort to minimize collateral damage, we both know that innocent people will die. How is that not a choice that our life isn't worth more than theirs?

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.

In the example you just cited we are not choosing that our life is more important than the innocent Iraqi villager. We are deciding that it is in the best interest of Iraq that these villages are cleared of insurgents. If the insurgents are not defeated no one in Iraq is going to have any rights. So it is in the interest of promoting the universal moral code (the idea of promoting justice) that we shell these villages.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
or another pro-free market, anti-government, economic and fiscal conservative Republican.

I have no probelm hanging out with Milton Friedman, Arthur laffer, Halyek and all the scholars from the Hoover, Heritage and Enterprize institutions and foundations for the rest of my life. I would much prefer to hang out with them than Hugo Chavez, Tom Daschel, Dick Gephart and that former Klansmen Penske is obsessed with.

The worst punishment for me would have to be to spend an eternity in a room with Noam Chomsky, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn and that midget that served as Bill Clinton's labor secretary.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Don't get arrogant and ignorant on me.. Wonk. I already explained to you how I understood the definition and you did not. It is clear you are still confusing absolute with simple and relative with complicated. If I am a moral absolutist I do NOT have to believe that killing is either wrong or right in all circumstances. I can believe in an absolute moral code and believe killing is OK under certain circumstances in not OK in other. Just like I can believe in an absolute legal code where killing is legal in certain circumstances and not legal in others.



Many of the pro-life people do not beleive all life is sacred. In fact most don't. But they believe that it is wrong to kill innocent life. If a zygote is a life form then is it not also innocent? If you believe that life begins at conception, and you believe that it is wrong to kill an innocent life, then you need to be against abortion.



Killing under certain circumstances is an absolute wrong and under other circumstances is an absolute right (or moral imperative). Most of them time intentionally killing an innocent life is wrong. Actually that has to be a inncent human life.



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.

In the example you just cited we are not choosing that our life is more important than the innocent Iraqi villager. We are deciding that it is in the best interest of Iraq that these villages are cleared of insurgents. If the insurgents are not defeated no one in Iraq is going to have any rights. So it is in the interest of promoting the universal moral code (the idea of promoting justice) that we shell these villages.

You hit the nail on the head. The problem is the modern day liberal wants to ignore the universal moral code. They want a sliding scale of morality, forever fluid to explain away and justify their transgressions and lapses, with no responsibility being the ultimate end to acheive. It explains how they can admit perjury is wrong and illegal but excuse the Cheif Executive Officer of the country's perjury because it is "just about sex".

Sad. I shudder for the children of our nation if the liberals and their pals in the MSM succeed in replacing the the universal moral code with their morally relativistic amorality.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have no probelm hanging out with Milton Friedman, Arthur laffer, Halyek and all the scholars from the Hoover, Heritage and Enterprize institutions and foundations for the rest of my life. I would much prefer to hang out with them than Hugo Chavez, Tom Daschel, Dick Gephart and that former Klansmen Penske is obsessed with.

The worst punishment for me would have to be to spend an eternity in a room with Noam Chomsky, Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda, Sean Penn and that midget that served as Bill Clinton's labor secretary.

2. That latter crowd may be worse that a 1000 Hillarys.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
You don't really believe this. Many of our rights don't help us survive. In fact many of our rights allow us to diminish the lenght of our lives.

Provided someone doesn't also do harm to anyone else, he/she should have the right to diminish his/her lifespan

This has nothing to do with survival. And why should people be free from unwanted invasions upon their person? If you are forcing someone to take an antibiotic shot that will save their lives then such an invasion upon their person will help them survive.

Either we are endowed with an unalienable right to liberty or we aren't Spanky. You can't have it both ways. Are you really suggesting the state whould be able to medicate someone against their will?

This only poses a problem for people that have not fully thought through their moral framework. Many liberals and pacifists say it is absolutely wrong to kill anyone. If you believe that it is absolutely wrong to kill someone under any circumstances you are also a moral absolutist. I think this is an immoral position to take and actually violates the universal moral code.

Ghandi was a moral absolutist that believed in a universal moral code. I think his code is and was well intentioned, but improperly conceived and applied and leads to great evil.

I also believe that moral relativism leads to great evil. If morals change with the circumstance and the culture then there really aren't morals are there. In a moral relativist world you can not critisize the Germans for killing the Jews.

Only if you believe in moral absolutes and a higher law can you critisize the genocide of the jews. In Hitler's mind the Genocide was the moral thing to do, and he changed the laws to make it legal. He also argued that the Genocide was a necessary good for the German culture and German people. Many people that were involved in it thought it was the right thing to do. Only something so monstrous could be pulled of by people thinking they were doing the "right thing".

It is only in a culture that does not believe in universal human rights (and thereby a universal moral code) that such atrocities can occure. Both Hitler and Stalin believed that the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few". With social engineering it is OK to sacrifice the rights of peopel to benefit the society as a whole. However, if you believe in a universal moral code, and believe like Jefferson that these rights come from our creator then you can't go around killing large number of people (infringing on their rights) because it benefits the majority of the people.

Most peole that I know that believe in a universal moral code believe that Genocide (or the intentional mass killing of innocnets) is one of the worst violations of the code and it is never OK under any circumstances.

The rest of this is ridiculous. I have never suggested that anyone could defend genocide. If you want to know what I believe, ask me. Don't throw up straw men, especially ones as ridiculous as this one.

[Spanky]

I believe that Jefferson's statement is true: "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable right, among these being life liberty and the pursuite of happiness."

Unlike Jefferson himself, I believe this rule applies to all human beings on the planet earth. Including Arabs.

So when we are trying to help a country set up a government that will protect these rights, I believe that we are helping promote justice around the world. Arabs deserver these rights just as much as we do, and they are entitled to these rights just as much as we do.

When some says you are trying to impose western values on these countries, I disagree. I think we are trying to impose universal values on these countries. People said it was naive to try and impose these values on the Japanese and Koreans. But if worked there because these values are not western they are universal.

A moral relativist might say that in Arab countrys these rights are not part of their culture so it is both arrogant and naive to think that we can impose a system to protect these rights. Hello Ty.

I believe these rights are universal and apply to all cultures and people. It is interesting though when you discuss something like female circumscission how all of a sudden liberals discover universal rights and don't thin it is arrogant to impose such a right on different cultures.

What I also find hypocritical is when we are critisized for trying to impose these rights on another country, but when we do, and we don't impose 100% of these rights for practical reason - in other words choosing 95% instead of Zero (like not giving women equal rights with men so we can get a constitution passed that protects most of these rights) then we are critisized for not insisting on 100% of these rights. If it is arrogant and naive to impose our system and values on these countrys, then isn't it better that we only impose on 95% of our values instead of a %100.

Either morals or rights are universal, and we should try and spread them, or they are not, and we should not blink an eye when females are circumsized in foreigh countrys or widows are thrown on funeral pyres.

Telling these countrys to stop mutilating their young women and killing widows is either an arrogant and naive attempt to impose our western values on these countrys or cultures or an attempt to promote an absolute universal code. You can't have it both ways folks.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Provided someone doesn't also do harm to anyone else, he/she should have the right to diminish his/her lifespan



Either we are endowed with an unalienable right to liberty or we aren't Spanky. You can't have it both ways. Are you really suggesting the state whould be able to medicate someone against their will?

The state already does with certain vaccines. Also, it was the state that murdered Terri Schiavo, sort of by reverse medication. What group perpetuated that act?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Don't get arrogant and ignorant on me.. Wonk. I already explained to you how I understood the definition and you did not. It is clear you are still confusing absolute with simple and relative with complicated. If I am a moral absolutist I do NOT have to believe that killing is either wrong or right in all circumstances. I can believe in an absolute moral code and believe killing is OK under certain circumstances in not OK in other. Just like I can believe in an absolute legal code where killing is legal in certain circumstances and not legal in others.

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.

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.

Okay, I can accept your position that you can believe in an absolute moral code and still believe killing is okay under some circumstances and not in others. Who gets to decide when it is okay to kill and when it isn't? What basis is to be used in deciding?

Many of the pro-life people do not beleive all life is sacred. In fact most don't. But they believe that it is wrong to kill innocent life. If a zygote is a life form then is it not also innocent? If you believe that life begins at conception, and you believe that it is wrong to kill an innocent life, then you need to be against abortion.

In the first place, I don't know that life begins at conception. I don't know that it doesn't, but I haven't been persuaded that it does. But, assuming for the moment the zygote is a life form, then why is it by definition innocent? What if carrying it to term will kill the mother? What if the burden of caring for the child is beyond the mother's economic, emotional, and other resources?

Killing under certain circumstances is an absolute wrong and under other circumstances is an absolute right (or moral imperative). Most of them time intentionally killing an innocent life is wrong. Actually that has to be a inncent human life. But innocent is not a relative term. You just need to define it. In addition, there are exceptions when killing an innocent life is OK. Although I doubt there are very few when intentionally killing an innocent life is OK. However, if a plane full if innocent civilians has been highjacked and the plane is heading for one of the towers of the world trade center. I think it is OK to shoot it down and kill everyone on board.

You're being inconsistent here. First you claim that it is never acceptable to kill an innocent person. Then you claim that sometimes it is. This is relativism.

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.

I think this is absolutely wrong.

In the example you just cited we are not choosing that our life is more important than the innocent Iraqi villager. We are deciding that it is in the best interest of Iraq that these villages are cleared of insurgents. If the insurgents are not defeated no one in Iraq is going to have any rights. So it is in the interest of promoting the universal moral code (the idea of promoting justice) that we shell these villages.

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?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Provided someone doesn't also do harm to anyone else, he/she should have the right to diminish his/her lifespan

And in what cultures and in what circumstances do we have these rights.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Either we are endowed with an unalienable right to liberty or we aren't Spanky. You can't have it both ways. Are you really suggesting the state whould be able to medicate someone against their will?

You really are slow aren't you. I was pointing out that not all rules are for survival You were the one who said that. I am not suggesting anything. You at one point said all rules are for survival and then said that it was wrong to violate someone person against their will. Your two principals seem to contradict eachother.

Originally posted by taxwonk The rest of this is ridiculous. I have never suggested that anyone could defend genocide. If you want to know what I believe, ask me. Don't throw up straw men, especially ones as ridiculous as this one.

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.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe that Jefferson's statement is true: "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inaliable right, among these being life liberty and the pursuite of happiness."

Unlike Jefferson himself, I believe this rule applies to all human beings on the planet earth. Including Arabs.

So when we are trying to help a country set up a government that will protect these rights, I believe that we are helping promote justice around the world. Arabs deserver these rights just as much as we do, and they are entitled to these rights just as much as we do.

When some says you are trying to impose western values on these countries, I disagree. I think we are trying to impose universal values on these countries. People said it was naive to try and impose these values on the Japanese and Koreans. But if worked there because these values are not western they are universal.

A moral relativist might say that in Arab countrys these rights are not part of their culture so it is both arrogant and naive to think that we can impose a system to protect these rights. Hello Ty.

I believe these rights are universal and apply to all cultures and people. It is interesting though when you discuss something like female circumscission how all of a sudden liberals discover universal rights and don't thin it is arrogant to impose such a right on different cultures.

What I also find hypocritical is when we are critisized for trying to impose these rights on another country, but when we do, and we don't impose 100% of these rights for practical reason - in other words choosing 95% instead of Zero (like not giving women equal rights with men so we can get a constitution passed that protects most of these rights) then we are critisized for not insisting on 100% of these rights. If it is arrogant and naive to impose our system and values on these countrys, then isn't it better that we only impose on 95% of our values instead of a %100.

Either morals or rights are universal, and we should try and spread them, or they are not, and we should not blink an eye when females are circumsized in foreigh countrys or widows are thrown on funeral pyres.

Telling these countrys to stop mutilating their young women and killing widows is either an arrogant and naive attempt to impose our western values on these countrys or cultures or an attempt to promote an absolute universal code. You can't have it both ways folks.

I agree. The spread of the UMC (Universal Moral Code) to all peoples of the wolrd, incl. but not limited tothe Islamists, is both a noble and humane pursuit. If people here can't get that I take heart that at the least W does. And he is in charge.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk


In the first place, I don't know that life begins at conception. I don't know that it doesn't, but I haven't been persuaded that it does. But, assuming for the moment the zygote is a life form, then why is it by definition innocent? What if carrying it to term will kill the mother? What if the burden of caring for the child is beyond the mother's economic, emotional, and other resources?

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.