|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 18:33:58 GMT -5
ok there is two issues here
one is saddham's evilness and whether we have the right to go and remove him from power this point is debateable
the other more important issue here, is that we did not start this war to remove saddham from power, but based on LIES from our own administration about the threat posed by iraq and our own hypocrisy
also if more people were killed as a result of this war then saddham killed in his purges, why do we put ourselves on some sort of moral highground?
though you don't see other solutions doesn't mean there aren't any
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 18:37:36 GMT -5
what bothers me most is that we don't know why we went to war in iraq - that is the danger here this time its saddham, who is it going to be next time and why?
and are we really safer now because of this war? if anything it probably rallied more people to terrorist cause
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 18:48:25 GMT -5
This after-the-fact bloviating is of little value especially considering that the US basicly won in Iraq and liberated millions. Now it's pretty much up to them and their army, in a few years, to defend themselfs. You might like this debate between George Galloway vs. Christopher Hitchens on this subject.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 15, 2009 18:59:30 GMT -5
though you don't see other solutions doesn't mean there aren't any Do you see any other solutions?
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Mar 15, 2009 19:07:37 GMT -5
if you refuse to see the costs of what we have done or dig a little deeper into the long term consequences including our own loss of freedom, then yeah there is no value but many people are willing to look into it
I suppose for you personally the only way you will see the danger of things like allowing torture is by ending up on the receiving end
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Mar 16, 2009 15:13:58 GMT -5
If you look at Al-Qaida it attacked numerous times before 9/11, which was a 'Pearl Harbor' kind of wake-up call. The cost of fighting terrorism is great, however, now you have two countries in the middle east that are pro-western while striving to be a democratic country with a muslim majority, without the religious fanatics or dictarors controling it - like Turkey. It seems to me the middle east is going to be a big problem in the future, because of Wahhabism and other terorrist inspiring religion distortions of Islam that are propaganding fast (high birth rate, recruiting).
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 19, 2009 10:00:03 GMT -5
Continued debate from anoter thread about moral relativismwhat other people are you talking about? what implications? People that feel used after they've been dumped because it was just about sex. People that got STD's, people that got AIDS. It's interesting to note that the ones that are the most promiscious have been abused in the past and as a result don't like themselfs very much and promuscuity is the only way they feel "loved". That's the case for many pornstars. If you have issues with authority, I'm not going to resolve them for you. Since you seem like an atheist who wants to tear down all the walls of religiuos authority in your own life, go right ahead. But I'm not going to join you. I believe those religions (Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism..) are right when they say that being promiscious is bad. The bads outweight the short term pleasures and orgasms. Are you saying I don't know what moral relativism is? ;D Well, I'd really love to be educated on what moral relativism is, by a moral relativist, which I think you are. That sounds impressive.
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 19, 2009 13:10:37 GMT -5
I know what it is. For those who don't know, wikipedia describes it as follows: "Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances." So if you're more radical with with it allows one to make immoral decision based on the fact they either haven't been cought, or aren't breaking the law. So if there's no law that'll put you in jail, they're going to do things that hurt people because there's nothing preventing them, legally to do so. However, just like the Bible says "every hair on your head is counted" and the eastern concept of Karma: You are accountable for everything you do. So if somebody raped someone and nobody saw it, and she never told anybody, that doesn't mean he got off the hook. Nobody gets off the hook.
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Apr 19, 2009 23:34:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 20, 2009 8:26:39 GMT -5
I never though Thunderf00t was going to be mentioned on this forum. It's off topic, but I'm going to adress it anyway: Thunderf00t is the brilliant guy that resorts to ad-hominem and poisoning the well tactics when he doesn't have a solid argument. Just like another "deep thinker" on YouTube that is called 'TheAmazingAtheist'. A excellent example was the recent back and forth he had with an user called HowTheWorldWorks in which Thunderf00t showed his debating skills or lack thereof. When your responce consists of mostly ignoring the opponents points and attacking him instead, you lost the debate. And he lost.
|
|
|
Post by MrNice on Apr 20, 2009 9:00:49 GMT -5
this does not follow from the definition of moral relativism either you make an attempt to understand it or there can be no discussion
except it never stops people from killing cheating and stealing somehow they always find an excuse
sounds like Bill O'Reilly without the brilliant part
naptaq people are not going to -debate- ignorant opinions
your idiotic assertion that those that do not succumb to religion don't murder only because they will get caught is insulting and wrong. religious people, in practice are not better then non religious on moral issues.
|
|
|
Post by Farouche on Apr 20, 2009 13:56:59 GMT -5
Naptaq ---------------- I know what it is.
For those who don't know, wikipedia describes it as follows:
"Moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances."
So if you're more radical with with it allows one to make immoral decision based on the fact they either haven't been cought, or aren't breaking the law. So if there's no law that'll put you in jail, they're going to do things that hurt people because there's nothing preventing them, legally to do so.
Clearly there is a reason why "reading" and "understanding" are not considered synonyms. You still do not understand the concept of moral relativism, and it's pretty clear that you have no desire to understand or to have any kind of a fair debate. Every time someone who does "believe in" moral relativism tries to explain to you exactly what it implies, you tell them they're wrong. It makes no sense. It'd be like if I said, "taking communion means you hate Jesus and want to eat him" and refused to let an actual Christian explain what communion is supposed to signify. If I hadn't already written most of this post last night, I wouldn't even bother. Moral relativism isn't some crazy libruhl wish. It's a fact. Even murder is not always considered wrong. In western societies, murder is morally and legally defensible if it is necessary to self defense. It's also acceptable for soldiers to murder enemy combatants on the battlefield. In many places in the US and other countries, too, murder is moral and legal when a judge sentences a criminal to death. In some countries, under Shari'a law, it is moral to murder a female relative who is raped, in order to preserve the honor of the family as a whole. Historically even in Western societies, it was moral to kill an opponent in a duel if one man had insulted the other. And it was moral and legal (and great fun for the whole family) to hang people for crimes as mundane as stealing a horse. Some people claim that killing is ALWAYS wrong, even in self defense; even to kill an animal. Some others claim that a simple personal insult can be enough to justify killing. Most people stand somewhere in between those two extremes. The Old Testament records many instances of God helping or encouraging the Hebrews to destroy their enemies, so the evidence points to God believing there are exceptions, too. And in the New Testament he seems to change his mind and advocate turning the other cheek. I once read a wonderfully intelligent argument against the idea of a universal morality, regarding the fact that God is happy when Abraham almost kills Isaac to prove his faith, not angry that Abraham would go against a universal code prohibiting the killing of innocents. You can try to argue that God has always had in mind a specific, never-changing idea of when killing is right (animals for food, self defense, others..?), but whatever you claim that "universal" law says exactly, many religious people would be prepared to argue with you. Naptaq --------------- However, just like the Bible says "every hair on your head is counted" and the eastern concept of Karma: You are accountable for everything you do.
So if somebody raped someone and nobody saw it, and she never told anybody, that doesn't mean he got off the hook. Nobody gets off the hook. You can speculate about supernatural justice, but in this lifetime at least, he does get off the hook if he doesn't believe that it's wrong, as sad as that is. This is why it's important to encourage empathy and teach that rape or "forcing oneself" on another human being is wrong. But just decreeing that it goes against the great moral ledger in the sky doesn't do anything to cut down the number of victims. Skyhint's video does a good job of explaining why basic morals are innate in humans, if you can look past the stuff about religion. Even if you refuse to watch the video, at least think about this question it raises: what gives a piranha its morals? Or, how do piranhas know not to kill each other during a feeding frenzy?
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 20, 2009 14:59:35 GMT -5
except it never stops people from killing cheating and stealing somehow they always find an excuse Yeah, but they're not following it. *Yawn*
|
|
|
Post by Naptaq on Apr 20, 2009 15:52:14 GMT -5
Clearly there is a reason why "reading" and "understanding" are not considered synonyms. Oh, that's why I failed kindergarten.. lol ;D jk Why do you call yourself libruhl? I haven't called you that. A country is not a religious institution, and is not bound by 10 commendments, therefore it's okay and even expected to kill if neccessary to protect lives and defend the country. The intention in self-defence is vastly different than the killer. The killers intention is to kill, self-defence is to protect your life, not to kill the guy, or gal. Jesus thought forgiveness, not passivity. Two different things. Not everybody is called to be a Jesus or a Gandhi. So one is pragmatic and doesn't waste a life away, because of a mugger with a gun. In moral relativism, anything goes. If there are no absolutes, then everything's relative and subject to one's choise. Stealing because of greed? Done. Killing for money? Done. Pedhophilia? Done. And on and on and on. Granted, I'm talking about relativism gone to extremes but that's what it can lead to. For criminals that turn to some religious beliefs it does something to not do that again. And that, in effect, is cutting down the number of victims. It's not in their nature to kill it's own. Just like wolfs, comodo dragons and all the other predators.
|
|
|
Post by skyhint on Apr 20, 2009 17:59:16 GMT -5
I never though Thunderf00t was going to be mentioned on this forum. It's off topic, but I'm going to adress it anyway: Thunderf00t is the brilliant guy that resorts to ad-hominem and poisoning the well tactics when he doesn't have a solid argument. Just like another "deep thinker" on YouTube that is called 'TheAmazingAtheist'. A excellent example was the recent back and forth he had with an user called HowTheWorldWorks in which Thunderf00t showed his debating skills or lack thereof. When your responce consists of mostly ignoring the opponents points and attacking him instead, you lost the debate. And he lost. I actually find that he really understands what he's talking about. He may call his opponents fools but he will then calmly explain why they are fools by addressing their arguements.
|
|