Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not for nothing, but if your argument is that rights are handed down to us from God, then a companion argument that those rights are of the kind of "irreducible complexity" that is the hallmark of ID doesn't reflect well on you.

2 to all this. I also think Penske's photoshops are contrary to his alleged Christianity. Those are bearing false witness, plus the one's on Adult board are obscene. Plus, i invented the Jesus avatar, and he stole the idea and stealing isn't Christian.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
If all criteria of judgement are relative to the individuals and situations involved, then the judgement of right and wrong can change depending on the people involved in the situation. In other words, right or wrong can change from society to society and culture to culture because the people doing the judging are changing.

This doesn't mean that an individual cannot be a relativist and conclude that a particular action is right or wrong. You are taking a very simplistic view of the definition. If I look at a situation, balance the relative good and evil involved in taking action one way or another, then that is also relativism.

People do not have a right to be unjust. Societies do not have right to act immorally. There is nothing wrong with enforcing justice. When you spread justice you are not violating anyone's rights.

The problem with this view is twofold. First, you claim the power to determine unilaterally what is and what is not just. Second, you then argue that it is always acceptable to act with force to compel people to follow your view of what is just.

If you are correct, and what you espouse is moral or just, then, since your code is universal, people will choose to conform their society to act in the way you are advocating. If "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are universal human rights (which, incidentally, I also believe they are) then we cannot deprive people of their liberty in the guise of bringing to them our interpretation of democracy. Persuasion is acceptable, economic incentives are acceptable, but orce is not always acceptable.

I don't have any problem with using undemocratic methods to bring democracy to a country. I think this is in line with the universal moral code. Why would using undemocratic methods to bring a democracy be a problem?

In the moral code I believe in, there is a time in place for violence, killing and coercion. Sometimes all three of these things are a moral imperative. You are assuming that if there is a moral code that it has to be some pacifistic code that eschews all violence etc. I don't think the universal moral code is even close to the pacifistic one that someone like Ghandi envisions.

Why would using undemocratic methods to to bring democracy be a problem? Perhaps because it is undemocratic? Perhaps because if you need to use force to implement it it isn't so universal?

I am not assuimng that a universal moral code has to be pacifist. I am suggesting that it is logically impossible to say the democracy is a universally moral virtue and then assert that it is not a violation of that code to deny people the right to self-determination.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Have you ever been to a MoveOn rally? Do you know first hand what the message is?

I haven't been to a MoveOn raally, because from what I've read of them on the net, I don't agree with their message or their methods.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not for nothing, but if your argument is that rights are handed down to us from God, then a companion argument that those rights are of the kind of "irreducible complexity" that is the hallmark of ID doesn't reflect well on you.

PoPD. Noted.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I know, and that is why I say "may." The problem is that with experimental technologies, the costs and the risks of failure or inefficientcy is very high, though the magnitude of potential success is also very high. In areas of such import as energy, I think it may be beneficial to encourage more entres into the industry in order to increase the chances of success by mitigating, at least to a small degree, the costs involved.

The pharm/biotech industry has a great model in this regard. Many of the assets/technologies are developed by the universities and then licensed or sold to private companies in the development/exploitation stage. Not sure if this is done in the energy industry.

I am not sure either. I have a friend who is a CEO of an alt energy company. I am going to see him next weekend. I'll ask and report back.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
2 to all this. I also think Penske's photoshops are contrary to his alleged Christianity. Those are bearing false witness, plus the one's on Adult board are obscene. Plus, i invented the Jesus avatar, and he stole the idea and stealing isn't Christian.

How do you define "obscene"?

ps: thanks for getting my back here.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
This doesn't mean that an individual cannot be a relativist and conclude that a particular action is right or wrong. You are taking a very simplistic view of the definition. If I look at a situation, balance the relative good and evil involved in taking action one way or another, then that is also relativism.

Not according the definitions you have been using.

1) 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.

2) Relativism

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

A moral relativist can only conclude that something is right or wrong for a particular time and place. But in a different culture (different groups or different individuals) or at a different time, what is considered right or wrong can change.

Originally posted by taxwonk
The problem with this view is twofold. First, you claim the power to determine unilaterally what is and what is not just..

I never claimed this. You need to start quoting me because you never seem to get it right. Let me speak for myself.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Second, you then argue that it is always acceptable to act with force to compel people to follow your view of what is just...

Again, I never said this. Please show me where I said this.

Originally posted by taxwonk
If you are correct, and what you espouse is moral or just, then, since your code is universal, people will choose to conform their society to act in the way you are advocating....

I do not agree with that at all. Just because what is just is universal does not mean that the powers that be in a chosen society will choose to follow it.

Originally posted by taxwonk
If "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are universal human rights (which, incidentally, I also believe they are).....

If you believe these rights are universal then you are not a moral relativist. According to your prior definitions what is right and wrong can change in different groups. Now you are saying these rights apply to all people at all times (in other words they don't change when you have different groups, different individuals or different siutations).

Originally posted by taxwonk
you are saying that these rights apply to all groups then we cannot deprive people of their liberty in the guise of bringing to them our interpretation of democracy. .....

I don't think we have done this. Especially in Iraq. The people under Saddam had no liberties. They have much more liberty under the occupation reqime than they ever had under Saddam. When people have no liberties or rights we can use force to bring such liberties and rights to them.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Persuasion is acceptable, economic incentives are acceptable, but orce is not always acceptable.....

I agree with that statement.

Originally posted by taxwonk
Why would using undemocratic methods to to bring democracy be a problem? Perhaps because it is undemocratic? universal?
.....

You are using faulty logic. There is no problem with using undemocrtic means to bring democracy to a people. Why would there be? If there is a dictatorship, is there a way to bring democracy using democratic means? It may have happened once or twice, but generally force is always needed to topple an undemocratic government. There is no democracy, you apply force, and you get democracy. What is wrong with that?

Originally posted by taxwonk
Perhaps because if you need to use force to implement it it isn't so universal?
.....

Now you are getting ridiculous. Did I say everything needs to be universal? I just said that the moral code is universal. Just because I like large amount of money does not also mean I like large amounts of snakes. Using force to implement democracy is not a problem.

Originally posted by taxwonk

I am not assuimng that a universal moral code has to be pacifist. I am suggesting that it is logically impossible to say the democracy is a universally moral virtue and then assert that it is not a violation of that code to deny people the right to self-determination.

I don't know what you are talking about. Who is denying anyone the right to self determination. In Iraq we are trying to give the people a chance at self determination. Before we came along they did not have self determination. We used force to give it toe them - what is wrong with that?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I haven't been to a MoveOn raally, because from what I've read of them on the net, I don't agree with their message or their methods.

Maybe you should to get a full understanding of the pacificism and communistic heresey they put forth, as they are out front of the left wing's message and perhaps are unfairly hijacking your party much as the Islamofacists have done with the religion of the masses of Muslims in the liberal enlightened countries of the ME. Its good to understand the enemy before you seek to destroy, which is why I spend so much time attending their rallies.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Maybe you should to get a full understanding of the pacificism and communistic heresey they put forth, as they are out front of the left wing's message and perhaps are unfairly hijacking your party much as the Islamofacists have done with the religion of the masses of Muslims in the liberal enlightened countries of the ME. Its good to understand the enemy before you seek to destroy, which is why I spend so much time attending their rallies.

I think you confuse the extreme DU/MoveOn libs with the more mainstream. SHP is the only one here with a DU login (besides you and me of course).

TaxWonk Ty and them, they're content to follow politics on The West Wing. "I think Santos will make a Great President!"
The new Geena Davis show will split the ticket as to Lib President fantasies, but, really having that choice is something to be happy about. all in all- it's a good time to be a lib with a healthy ability to suspend disbelief.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Technolgy in energy areas has developed. Now it just has to sell.

The hybrid cars are a big step forward, but because we have to have such big cars they have the approximate gas milage as the cars being sold in the late 70's early 80's. So the technology benefits us how?

You want to reduce energy problems the thing you need to do is make the consumer change. There are incentives being put out for hybrids like access to HV lanes even though you only have a driver.

The current technology is in its infancy, and I think what ultimately prevails will look a whole lot different than what is prevailing today. I'd like to see 10X the number of models/ideas as is currently in the marketplace.

The consumer is changing and will continue to chage for as long as there is price pressure to do so, and not a minute longer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Sadly yes, although based on some of Ty@50's comments, perhaps he can absolve himself here on earth, before the final judgment.

I see Sebby doing a couple of millenia in pergatory, as much for his sexual perversion as his political heresey, but eventually making it to the show. sts.

Like one of the 20th century's most underrated philosophers noted, "Hell ain't a bad place to be..."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Like one of the 20th century's most underrated philosophers noted, "Hell ain't a bad place to be..."

I see better things from you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I see better things from you.

I just wanted an excuse to throw out a bizarre reference probably only Slave would recognize...

[SlaveNoMore]

sebastian_dangerfield
I just wanted an excuse to throw out a bizarre reference probably only Slave would recognize...

On behalf of the Scott family, I thank you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
On behalf of the Scott family, I thank you.

What? No salute?