US: Democrat or Republican

[Napoleon Ier]

Not to butt in, but I think unriggable was talking about the hypocrisy of someone advocating the nukulur family while also trying to have bumsex.

I hope so. I sincerely hope that he wasn't saying anyone advocating good old family values,and believing a loving and united family is the proper environment for a healthy child to be raised were all fuckers.

Without fuckers there would be no children to raise.

dont make idiotic remarks, it annoys me.

[heavycola]

Not to butt in, but I think unriggable was talking about the hypocrisy of someone advocating the nukulur family while also trying to have bumsex.

I hope so. I sincerely hope that he wasn't saying anyone advocating good old family values,and believing a loving and united family is the proper environment for a healthy child to be raised were all fuckers.

Without fuckers there would be no children to raise.

dont make idiotic remarks, it anoys me.

:sees red rag:
:snorts:
:paws ground with hoof:

[Neoteny]

what did everyone think of the debate last night? I think a Guilani/Huckabee ticket could be really interesting if that ended up getting put together.

I love how the news networks don't even pretend that the elections aren't a popularity contest anymore. We've even got real time polling. I tuned in to watch the rises and drops for a little bit and then got distracted, but I have to say that Romney has the most presidential "air" about him, at least in the Republican party. I just disagree with almost everything he says.

[Snorri1234]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

So murdering (oops, I mean killing) people in war is ok as long as the war is justified?

[Dancing Mustard]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

Don't spout such shite.
The 'Just War' Principles are completely subjective opinions of one man, they are in no way a guiding code of moral absolutes and have no more relevance to whether a war is 'just' than you or my personal opinion does.

You can tell because every single State that currently exists no longer regards the theory as valid, and instead rely upon section 2(4) of the UN Charter to determine whether their wars are 'just'/valid/permissable.

[Guiscard]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

Don't spout such shite.
The 'Just War' Principles are completely subjective opinions of one man, they are in no way a guiding code of moral absolutes and have no more relevance to whether a war is 'just' than you or my personal opinion does.

Pope ses, OK?

[silvanricky]

In other news....

what did everyone think of the debate last night? I think a Guilani/Huckabee ticket could be really interesting if that ended up getting put together.

My teacher gives us extra credit if we write up a summary of the debates. What I thought was that Romney came out as some sort of prick. He obviously didn't like being asked about gays in the military. I don't like Mike Huckabee that much but at least the guy is honest about what he believes. I think both parties are screwed over the illegal immigration topic. Nobody is clean on that issue. They all are hypocrites over it.

By the way has anybody noticed that Huckabee is coming out of nowhere in the polls at least in Iowa? Obama is also starting to upset Clinton. I don't know if this will continue but it does make it at least a little more interesting to watch.

[Napoleon Ier]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

So murdering (oops, I mean killing) people in war is ok as long as the war is justified?

thats the idea, snorri

or is ityour contention we just have let Hitler go right head and seize the free world to establishlebensraum for the fictious Aryan race?

[Snorri1234]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

So murdering (oops, I mean killing) people in war is ok as long as the war is justified?

thats the idea, snorri

or is ityour contention we just have let Hitler go right head and seize the free world to establishlebensraum for the fictious Aryan race?

I think I read you stating murder was always and is always bad. I'm not making any statements about that.

[Napoleon Ier]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

Don't spout such shite.
The 'Just War' Principles are completely subjective opinions of one man, they are in no way a guiding code of moral absolutes and have no more relevance to whether a war is 'just' than you or my personal opinion does.

Pope ses, OK?

I can see the funnny side of your post, Guiscard, but I am trying to outline a case for moral absolutes and your comment doesnt help. You are of a certain intellectual calibre, I think you also owe me a sensible case for moral relaivism of you atribte yourself the right to mock my posts and insult my intelligence, a boundry which my respect and etiquette have so far held intact on my part.

[Napoleon Ier]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

So murdering (oops, I mean killing) people in war is ok as long as the war is justified?

thats the idea, snorri

or is ityour contention we just have let Hitler go right head and seize the free world to establishlebensraum for the fictious Aryan race?

I think I read you stating murder was always and is always bad. I'm not making any statements about that.

Murder.

Not all killing.

[Snorri1234]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

So murdering (oops, I mean killing) people in war is ok as long as the war is justified?

thats the idea, snorri

or is ityour contention we just have let Hitler go right head and seize the free world to establishlebensraum for the fictious Aryan race?

I think I read you stating murder was always and is always bad. I'm not making any statements about that.

Murder.

Not all killing.

Well if someone had killed Hitler because he was a scumbag, he would still be a murderer. Since the only distinction between murder and homicide is whether you intended to kill beforehand.
And what if the war isn't justified? Are the soldiers suddenly responsible for the killings of the people even when they have nothing to say about it?

[Napoleon Ier]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

Don't spout such shite.
The 'Just War' Principles are completely subjective opinions of one man, they are in no way a guiding code of moral absolutes and have no more relevance to whether a war is 'just' than you or my personal opinion does.

You can tell because every single State that currently exists no longer regards the theory as valid, and instead rely upon section 2(4) of the UN Charter to determine whether their wars are 'just'/valid/permissable.

Garbage. Article 2 does not provide a theorem for just war, only recognition of the UN's legitimacy in the matter, as an authority :

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

[Napoleon Ier]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

So murdering (oops, I mean killing) people in war is ok as long as the war is justified?

thats the idea, snorri

or is ityour contention we just have let Hitler go right head and seize the free world to establishlebensraum for the fictious Aryan race?

I think I read you stating murder was always and is always bad. I'm not making any statements about that.

Murder.

Not all killing.

Well if someone had killed Hitler because he was a scumbag, he would still be a murderer. Since the only distinction between murder and homicide is whether you intended to kill beforehand.
And what if the war isn't justified? Are the soldiers suddenly responsible for the killings of the people even when they have nothing to say about it?

1.I didn't talk about murder and homicide, rather murder and killing,

2.You're just being pedantic and irritating, in reffering to murder, I naturally used my own definiton

3.These points are irrelevant, they in no way dent the principlesof moral absolutism.

[Nephilim]

fine, then define the supreme "moral law" you have spoken of, or at least describe it in more detail than simply asserting that it exists.....


*wagers 20 clams this will go nowhere*

[Snorri1234]

1.I didn't talk about murder and homicide, rather murder and killing,

Huh, explain the difference between killing and homicide.

2.You're just being pedantic and irritating, in reffering to murder, I naturally used my own definiton

Without explaining your own definition to the fullest, it's silly to assume we know what you're talking about. When someone uses a word, I refer to the most common definition.

3.These points are irrelevant, they in no way dent the principlesof moral absolutism.

They do not dent the principle, they do however dent the way you apply it to stuff. Besides, I was actually asking more for a clarification on your viewpoint then coming up with arguments against it.

[Dancing Mustard]

tonkaed your post does not offer proof that there is no moral absolute, but simply gives cases where morality is ambiguous. In war, perfectly absolute moral values (outlined by Aquinas) can specify whether it is a Just War or not.

Don't spout such shite.
The 'Just War' Principles are completely subjective opinions of one man, they are in no way a guiding code of moral absolutes and have no more relevance to whether a war is 'just' than you or my personal opinion does.

You can tell because every single State that currently exists no longer regards the theory as valid, and instead rely upon section 2(4) of the UN Charter to determine whether their wars are 'just'/valid/permissable.

Garbage. Article 2 does not provide a theorem for just war, only recognition of the UN's legitimacy in the matter, as an authority :

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Missing the point much?

As you haven't figured this out (I suspect you've just read this isolated clause, while remaining ignorant as to the contents of the rest of the Charter), I'll give you a clue: The point of this section is that it makes all 'war' illegitimate and unjust. If you'd bothered to read the sections of the charter that deal with the UNs authority to permit violence then you'd have realised that the only force regarded as acceptable is 'self-defence'.

At any rate, your poor knowledge of international relations aside, you still haven't explained why your precious 'just war' theory is a moral absolute, or why the opinion of Aquinas is any more relevant than any random man in the street's. You also failed to explain why no nation on this planet subscribes to your quaint old notion. (Clue: 'The Peace of Westphalia' might be a good place to start your reading).

[Guiscard]

At any rate, your poor knowledge of international relations aside, you still haven't explained why your precious 'just war' theory is a moral absolute, or why the opinion of Aquinas is any more relevant than any random man in the street's. You also failed to explain why no nation on this planet subscribes to your quaint old notion. (Clue: 'The Peace of Westphalia' might be a good place to start your reading).

QFT.

[Nobunaga]

... Thread title is "US: Democrat or Republican"

... It's interesting how quickly the conversation turned to arguments on a whole slew of divisive topics. The "American political scene" I suppose.

... Do folks in other countries argue about this stuff? Curious. I know the Japanese don't and Chinese can't. What's going in Europe?

...

[silvanricky]

You've got a point, Napoleon. I don't think that murder is alright. I also think you can't equate killing someone during a war with murder. People go that route when there's a war that they don't agree with so they try to make some link to it with murder.

However how can we always say that other areas of morality have to stay the same when cultures and societies change?

[mastershake]

GO MIKE HUCKABEE!!!!!

[comic boy]

comic boy, that can be said about almost anything, not just religion.

Please give an example then of a scale of hypocrisy that equals what I describe. An individuals hypocrisy will involve perhaps just a few people,which is hardly comparable to that of an institution that attempts to influence millions. Governments and multinational corporations certainly practice the same level of deceit , would you place much faith in them ?

"Murdering those who oppose it."
That was the main problem with that post, you made it sound as if it was ony the church that had ever done that, well here's news for you, people have been killing eachother when they oppose one another since the begining of time, and for varioous reasons. Ranging from rebellion, to not forking over a few bucks.

Also, many people are hypocrites, doesn't matter the scale of it, it happens. Some people do it to a lesser degree, others, to a much larger. For instance? The so-called tolerance of Conservatives by many (not all, but quite a few) Liberals. Those Liberals claim to be tolerent, yet once someone disagrees, they start to try and drag that person's name through the mud. I have seen it done many times, some even tried it with me. So before making such a claim about one thing, look into others, it happens with just about everything at point or another.

Oh, and silvan, I just like to chat with people.

You have a nasty habit of commenting on what you think a post means rather than what is actually written. I specifically used the Catholic church as an example because it was a direct response to a Catholic being hypocritical, its called context ! If religion espouses the moral high ground,which it does,then it has to set an example - you cant just say oh well its no worse than anything else.

[silvanricky]

Did I miss something or did comic boy just lose his mind and call you Luns?

[muy_thaiguy]

Yep.

[comic boy]

Did I miss something or did comic boy just lose his mind and call you Luns?

Its all those signatures everywhere LOL - Previous post edited