More on Bush and Faith.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

There is a difference between terrorism and how we conduct operations period.

I agree with you. I want to state very clearly that I am NOT saying that the coalition soldiers and the Al Quade network are similar.
I was indicating that teh line of reasoning of some people could lead us down the path we so deplore.
SkyDekker
"We cannot do great things, only small things with great love" Mother Theresa

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Ok, how do you feel about the female circumcision issues over in Africa?

I don't know enough about it, but I don't think there are any medical benefits to doing it. There are medical benefits to male circumcision (ie lower chance of urinary tract infection being one).

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Morality _is_ subjective.

Quote

You do not need to accept anyone else's viewpoint. You can reject it if you want. You just can't kill them because you disagree.

Why can't I kill them again? If I believe it is right to kill and morality is subjective what does it matter morally speaking? Oh, I see, the law with the hand of the government behind it will punish me if I murder. I guess that's why laws are considered moral since you can be punished for breaking them. In that case I will simply use my genius to murder someone while at the same time escaping the hand of the law. I guess might makes right after all. Neitzsche would be proud.
-Sinkster

[wildblue 7]

I *believe* that female circumcision's main purpose is to reduce the sexual stimulation so that the female is like likely to cheat on her husband.
Pretty sad stuff really...
... I forget how the rest of it goes, but you're mother's a whore!!

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . and the Al Quade network are similar.

Now I'm a terrorist?
quade
http://futurecam.com

[wildblue 7]

Quote

In that case I will simply use my genius to murder someone while at the same time escaping the hand of the law. I guess might makes right after all.

easy there super man
... I forget how the rest of it goes, but you're mother's a whore!!

[james1010 0]

Quote

would still agree with the non-seperation of church and state.

I DO NOT agree with the NON-separation of church and state. I agree with the NON-separation of ones Faith in God and ones actions, whether he's the President or a cab driver. I am merely speaking what I believe here, and that is that there should be no line.

Quote

I was NOT stating that Bush and the Infidel Exterminator are the same.

Understand.
James

[Sinkster 0]

hehe, I'm just using that as a hypothetical example to make a point. I'm definitely not a genius. And yes, you are so correct about me taking that example from Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment! Raskolnikov escapes the law, but he can't escape his conscience. You got some good learning in you! =)
-Sinkster
P.S. Either you edited your post and deleted it, or I was seeing things when I saw you sign your post as Dostoevsky. That's why I replied the way I did for anyone wondering.

[billvon 3,096]

>I don't think that male circumcision compares with child torture in this argument.
> Circumcision has some medical proponents even though the consensus is that
> it is not absolutely required.
While I agree, we are arguing over details. If someone in Kenya (for example) argued that sexual mutilation was torture, he'd have a pretty good argument. Poor answers - stop all circumcision, force Kenyans to get circumcisions, force them to believe in our way of life. Better answer - accept that we're different from Kenyans and leave it at that.
>Whereas torture is inflicting pain upon an individual for the primary purpose of
>causing pain and usually some type of secondary purpose like gaining
> information, entertainment, etc.
Again, no one claims that they torture children, just that the other side tortures children. And if you claim that inflicting pain for the purpose of entertainment is torture, what does that say about mothers who pierce their infant's ears so they can put jewelry in them? Is that OK because "everyone else does it?"
-bill von

[Lindsey 0]

I know the thread isn't about circumcision, and I'll only make a brief comment. There are a LOT of medical professionals today, who do not agree that there is ANY medical benefit to male circumcision. In fact, many medical schools are teaching that circumcision is unnecessary, and may, in fact, be harmful... People who advocate circumcision because of medical reasons are losing their argument these days.....and circumcisions that are performed are done more for cultural than for medical reasons. The neonates sensory pathways are intact, and, yes it's painful.
some days it's just not worth gnawing through the straps
http://home.earthlink.net/~linzwalley

[billvon 3,096]

>Why can't I kill them again? If I believe it is right to kill and morality is subjective
>what does it matter morally speaking?
There is a tremendous difference in believing whatever you choose to believe and inflicting that on someone else. Your right to swing your fists stops at my nose. If you don't see that then we don't have much of a common base to have a discussion.
>Oh, I see, the law with the hand of the government behind it will punish me if I
> murder. I guess that's why laws are considered moral since you can be
> punished for breaking them.
No, they are considered fair because we created them through our system of government, and we consider our system of government to be relatively fair. _After_ they were created they enforced a certain minimum level of morality.
>In that case I will simply use my genius to murder someone while at the same
> time escaping the hand of the law.
That does not change the fact that you will be a criminal and a murderer - you will just be a successful one.
>I guess might makes right after all.
You'd make a great soldier.
-bill von

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Again, no one claims that they torture children, just that the other side tortures children. And if you claim that inflicting pain for the purpose of entertainment is torture, what does that say about mothers who pierce their infant's ears so they can put jewelry in them? Is that OK because "everyone else does it?

I really don't think that the PRIMARY purpose of ear piercings is to inflict pain. I could be wrong but............

[kmcguffee 0]

Lindsey,
I have two very young boys and neither is circumcised. We were educated on the benefits and possible problems of circumcision vs noncircumcision. My boys have had a few more urinary tract infections than most circumcised boys. We were told they would have to pay more attention to cleanliness [whisper] down there [/whisper] than a circumcised boy. But, it is not absolutely necessary. We had a lot of doctors and nurses try to talk us into it based on these types of medical issues. There are still a large amount of advocates for it.

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

There is a tremendous difference in believing whatever you choose to believe and inflicting that on someone else. Your right to swing your fists stops at my nose.

Then you must believe that humans have some kind of *objective* value to them that does not depend on some fancy.

Quote

No, they are considered fair because we created them through our system of government, and we consider our system of government to be relatively fair. _After_ they were created they enforced a certain minimum level of morality.

But why is our government considered to be fair? Is it because it was founded on the belief that perhaps "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"?

Quote

That does not change the fact that you will be a criminal and a murderer.

Bill, I think you are more of an objectivist than you realize. I can't think of any true subjectivists who can live out their own moral system without massive problems.
-Sinkster

[wildblue 7]

Quote

P.S. Either you edited your post and deleted it, or I was seeing things when I saw you sign your post as Dostoevsky. That's why I replied the way I did for anyone wondering.

Yeah, I was going to comment on Dostoevsky, was trying to get the spelling right when I got trigger happy with the "Continue" button. Then I decided better of it, seeing as how we're already managed to stray in about 3 different paths with this thread, and didn't want to bastardize it more.
That, and I wanted to make you look silly and think you were seeing things
... I forget how the rest of it goes, but you're mother's a whore!!

[billvon 3,096]

>But why is our government considered to be fair? Is it because it was founded on
> the belief that perhaps "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
> created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to
> secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just
> powers from the consent of the governed"?
Yes, which in turn goes back to theories in the Magna Carta. The declaration of independence and the constitution were written by men, who tried to set forth the minimum framework of government and law needed to keep a country together. Did they succeed? Well, pretty well, despite some problems with secession later. Did they impress upon those documents their own feelings of morality? Of course. But I think there's a fundamental difference between the morality of law ("you may not murder your fellow man") and the morality of ones daily life ("you must go to church.") One must, by neccessity, be codified into law. The other must not be.
>Bill, I think you are more of an objectivist than you realize. I can't think of any
> true subjectivists who can live out their own moral system without massive
> problems.
Well, I am no solipsist. But there is a huge spectrum between solipsism and absolute objectivity. Neither extreme works well.
-bill von

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

>I guess might makes right after all.
You'd make a great soldier.

I find this rather insulting. Some of the most kind, gentle, and respectful people I know are soldiers. I used to be a soldier. Insinuating that all great soldiers believe 'might makes right' shows a vast amount of ignorance. It also explains your attitude toward our military. I would suggest you get to know the men and women of your military better. You will be surprised.

[billvon 3,096]

>I find this rather insulting. Some of the most kind, gentle, and respectful people
>I know are soldiers.
I'm sorry you feel that's insulting.
>Insinuating that all great soldiers believe 'might makes right' shows a vast
>amount of ignorance.
No, I am suggesting that a soldier's primary job is to kill the enemy. The military is essentially an organization who are experts at using force to achieve an objective. That's not insulting, that's simply their job. To believe otherwise is to wear some very rosy glasses. Those things hanging beneath an F-14's wings aren't kind or gentle emissaries of peace, they are weapons used to destroy and kill. Infantry is not taught to shoot to scare - they are taught to shoot to kill.
Not all policemen agree with all laws. However, it is their job to enforce them. Similarly, not all soldiers believe in all of the US's objectives, although the great majority do. It is, however, their job to use force to accomplish them. They are the "might" in "might makes right."
>It also explains your attitude toward our military. I would suggest you get to know
> the men and women of your military better. You will be surprised.
Warning - assumptions can make you look very foolish.
-bill von

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

Warning - assumptions can make you look very foolish.

Please do.
Soldiers have a job to do just like you or me. That job does not reflect on their ethics or morality in a negative way. Your statement 'might makes right' has a very negative connotation to it.

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Yes, which in turn goes back to theories in the Magna Carta.

As far as a manner of government, etc. yes, but the point was that the government which makes the law was to be founded on the objective principle that men are created by God to be 'equal' and have certain indisputable rights. Is the right to free speech only because the government lets us have free speech? No, the right is supposed to exist whether or not the government lets us have it or not. Furthermore, if the right to life (for example) was only a notion of the willingness of our government to protect that right then the right would be meaningless because once the government decided to take away that right by force it would cease to be a right unless there is an *objective* basis for that right.
The point is that the government does not give those rights, but rather secures the already existing rights that exist independent of the government. This is why we can say that China is wrong for its blatent human rights violations even though as a government it does not agree.

Quote

But I think there's a fundamental difference between the morality of law ("you may not murder your fellow man") and the morality of ones daily life ("you must go to church.") One must, by neccessity, be codified into law. The other must not be.

I definitely agree that there is a difference between the two, especially since the first is an act of evil which affects others and not just the evil doer. The second is an act which might affect the doer, but probably won't affect anyone else--so we should respect the free will, autonomy, and dignity of the individual to decide if he/she should to go to church or not. Still, both are moral propositions, and propositions like the second can have an objective truth to the matter about whether it is right or wrong if the notion of right and wrong exists.
I take it that you believe we should be able to do whatever we damn well please as long as it doesn't negatively affect anyone else and I agree that we should have the freedom to do so. My argument was simply that between the hard-set atheist and the very religious person like you pointed out, there is still an objective truth of the matter as to who is right. You said that "Neither is any more right than the other.", but if there is no God is the religious person's viewpoint that there is a God no more right than the atheists'? Likewise, if there is a God can the atheists' viewpoint be equally right?
You see, there can't both be a God and not a God existing at the same time, it is logically impossible in any universe. Therefore, either the hard-set atheist or the very religious person is more right! (or the Hindu is more right if there are millions of gods) Their viewpoints are simply not equally valid even though we may disagree about who is right or not.
-Sinkster

[ltdiver 3]

Paul,
Think you missed your calling. Perhaps a job change to KFI to spin the other side of the 'Ditto-Head' commentaries? ltdiver
____________________________________________
LightDiverCam

[skyhawk 2]

ok just say this the bible was written by "men" based on there current situation (note it is irrelivant wether god exists) i.e there is no mention of the internet or cars or etc it has been changed to reflect the current society and no doubt will be changed again within the next hundred years
Opinions are like a-holes everyone has one, the only one that does you any good is yours and all that comes out is shit

[james1010 0]

Quote

ok just say this the bible was written by "men" based on there current situation (note it is irrelivant wether god exists) i.e there is no mention of the internet or cars or etc

The Bible was written by INSPIRED men, but authored by God. And mans situation then, is still mans situation now. The existence of God is the most relevant thing there is. What isn't relevant is cars and the internet and etc.
James

[Schroeder 0]

is it relevant? does acknowledgement of his alleged existence affect the universe? If we were to not acknowledge him, but still live good lives as though he weren't around, would we still get smoted? Would we be capable of living good lives without that acknowledgement? If not, does that mean that we have religion dictating our moral/ethical basis?
I'd like to think not. I'd like to think that the good people I know who don't believe, will be on equal footing with everyone else _later_. provided there is a later, of course.
P.S.
What's the difference between authored, and written? That's an honest question.
"and if her "lawyer" friends don't like it, f*ck'em, let em riot...
....we're Sonic f*ck'n Death Monkey..."

[quade 4]

Man, you just opened up a can of worms on THAT one.
Some people believe that you can DO the most horrible things in the world, but if you truely accept Jesus as your saviour, you still get to be saved. In other words, it doesn't matter what you DO. You can be the most loving, generous person in the world, but if you don't accept Jesus as your saviour, then ya get to burn in hell.
quade
http://futurecam.com