[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Apr 1 2006, 04:54 PM, said:

Sure 1 million or more are dying or may but we did not stop Pol Pot in Cambodia and Europe did nothing but were able to help their own. No one hates them for doing nothing.

These are things that happen and will continue to happen due to our human (read animalistic) nature.

We have telethons and charity campaigns and galas for 20 people dying from somewhat obsure conditions. What about the 2 million (mostly children) that die of malaria each year? This due to lack of medicines that are not produced and provided because there is insufficient profit incentive for the major pharmaceutical companies to distribute them........

[Codo]

For the original theme, favourite CTs:

-Area 52
-CIA Murder of JFK
-moon landing was in Hollywood.
-Hitler was gay.
-All western goverments are marionetts. We are all ruled by a couple of banks, which secretly own the national banks. These really deciding guys are the Rockefellers and their friends.

Funny, as I tried to wrote Rockefeller, my PC lost his connetcion to the internet. So maybe they are there, reading my posts?
Flechters Visions...

[Al_U_Card]

Codo, on Apr 3 2006, 09:09 AM, said:

For the original theme, favourite CTs:

-Area 52
-CIA Murder of JFK
-moon landing was in Hollywood.
-Hitler was gay.
-All western goverments are marionetts. We are all ruled by a couple of banks, which secretly own the national banks. These really deciding guys are the Rockefellers and their friends.

Funny, as I tried to wrote Rockefeller, my PC lost his connetcion to the internet. So maybe they are there, reading my posts?
Flechters Visions...

And they are affecting your typing. Area 51 (Groom Lake air base in Nevada) where they have the "skunkworks" producing the stealth type prototype aircraft and have supposedly reverse engineered "captured" alien spacecraft.

[AceOfHeart]

The best conspiracy theory : we are living in a world of our imagination. Machines are ruling the real world and NEO is the savior(not)

[helene_t]

I'm not defending American foreign politics. But I have the feeling that it's not the main reason why so many Europeans don't like the U.S.

Ask people on the street in Amsterdam or Copenhagen (the two cities I happen to know best) what they associate with America. A few will menton that they liberated us from Nazi Germany. A few will mention that they bommed Vietnam back to the stone age. But most will talk about stuff like
- cocaine, firearms, racist violence
- bad taste food, bad taste television programs
- superficial politics (the tallest and stupiest guy allways wins)
- a religious belief in the relation between money and happyness

In other words, all those aspects of our own culture that we are ashamed of.

It's quite normal to believe that
- Everything was better in the good old days
- Everything that's good about our culture is inherent while everything that's bad was invented abroad

As it happens, both of the above axioms lead to the conclusion that America is evil.

[luke warm]

csdenmark, on Apr 3 2006, 07:21 AM, said:

Jimmy I don't understand your problems with the term moral. Maybe that's why I still don't understand your meaning of the word national interests.

i don't have any problems with the term 'moral'... i have a problem with someone calling an act immoral and then not saying why... when peter uses the word about ... well about anything, he doesn't actually mean it... see claus, to actually believe a thing is immoral is to admit there's such a thing as morality... the one can't exist without the other... one has to either admit that morality is subjective (aceofheart's canabal example) or state why it is objective... if subjective, it's reduced to the level of opinion, and should be stated as such... you notice that peter did not attempt to define morality, or explain why one act is moral while another is immoral.. he attempted to sidestep the question by saying he knew it when he saw it... that's simply an "r2" ... "mknot" debate

helene said:

But most will talk about stuff like
- cocaine, firearms, racist violence
- bad taste food, bad taste television programs
- superficial politics (the tallest and stupiest guy allways wins)
- a religious belief in the relation between money and happyness

In other words, all those aspects of our own culture that we are ashamed of

and those are things that most americans are ashamed of also... if you polled the same people and asked if the world would be better or worse if america withdrew into their own borders, what do you think they'd say? i wasn't kidding earlier when i said a part of me wishes we'd do that very thing.. then we could be hated for not doing enough rather than too much

[pbleighton]

"it hardly makes me nervous... but if i could ever get you to say why you use the word 'immoral', i think i'd be able to show that you don't really mean what you say

i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject

potter stewart indeed"

I gave you a straight answer. I will elaborate a bit, if it will help you.

I do not believe there is such a thing as "real, objective morality", a witless concept IMO. I am an atheist, and as such know that morality is something that the human race makes up as it goes along. It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible.

Morality is not physics. It is not provable. It is changeable. It can and should be debated. That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist, or that it isn't important.

Potter Stewart had it right.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 3 2006, 06:53 PM, said:

I do not believe there is such a thing as "real, objective morality", a witless concept IMO.

r2

Quote

I am an atheist, and as such know that morality is something that the human race makes up as it goes along. 

mknot ... but i do find your use of the word "know" to be interesting

Quote

That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist, or that it isn't important.

let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist... not to put words in your mouth, but you appear to be saying, "the actions of this gov't in these instances were immoral based not on objective standards, but on my own opinion... but i'm perfectly willing to understand how these very same acts can at the same time be considered moral by others, since morality is something we make up as we go along"

it that is your argument (r2 ... mknot), i'd suggest leaving 'morality' out of it

Quote

Potter Stewart had it right.

maybe the cannibal, not potter stewart, has it right... but then stewart might see the cannibal's table manners as immoral...

btw, i know you don't believe in an objective morality (as a christian, i knew it before you said so ), but why don't you?

[Winstonm]

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

[mike777]

Let's assume Country A has limited resources, many of them but limited.
Does Country A build a great army go to Bosnia or Darfur and stop young boys and girls from being killed and raped or does it use those resources to give everyone free housing, medical care, food, education and other important benefits. Should they go to other countries in Africa? How about South America and the Civil wars down South? How about Korea or Vietnam ?

Is it not better to feed our young and let these countries just fight it out? How about Iraq or Afganistan, it is not better to let our kids go to College for free and pull out now? Most if not all Country A's say yes to these questions, and to decide otherwise is Immoral.

IF it does go to these countries does it not end up hurting one side and helping another, which side do we choose? If we step in should we let the South form its own country and tell the North to stop killing people in the South? Which is more moral? Should they stop a Civil War in China by sending its expensive ships and young boys and girls to be a buffer zone or step aside, if so which side does it help or does it feed its needy home?

It would be nice to claim Country A can do both but it cannot. It would be nice to claim Country A can do both but it cannot in full. Should Countries send armies and let some of its own out in the cold, others choose to let the murder and rape go unchecked and claim poverty for their army while they sit in their warm free houses with warm free food and great free medical care.

What is more Moral? To let your own go hungery and out in the cold or to let strangers die in Concentration camps and mass graves when they are gassed? These are the real choices Country A makes.

One tiny example of what my generation did or did not do in Cambodia.
But we did get alot of neat free stuff and no one hates us for it.

Estimates of the number of dead range from 1.5 to 3 million out of a population of nearly 8 million people. http://en.wikipedia...._Killing_Fields

[pbleighton]

"let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist"

Not at all - it is real, but fluid, and difficult to define. See below.

"btw, i know you don't believe in an objective morality (as a christian, i knew it before you said so ), but why don't you?"

You should have read my post more carefully, I made it quite clear...

"It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible."

If morality is "objective", how can this be so?

I think that your objection to a political discussion with a moral component in the context of this thread is that you are reluctant to agree with criticisms of your country (even though at some level you agree with them somewhat, as you said), muting moral criticism of policies with talk of political consensus and lawyer-like "your honor, opposing counsel can't PROVE it's immoral". Of course I can't prove it. Most political discussions, even those with little moral content, are rarely provable. This is why the injection of a moral dimension makes you nervous.. "all the bash america posts make me sad..."

As you are a Christian (and as an atheist, I knew it before you said so), something in the back of your head must be telling you that Jesus would agree with these criticisms.

Peter

[mike777]

Morality hmmmmm


My guess is most people who follow a "traditional religion" believe in Objective Morality. What God/higher power says, teaches, decrees is Moral. This higher power cannot make an error. Those that follow the teachings can. This assumes that the higher power by allowing free will to come into the world has not made an error. It is assumed that out of perfection can only come perfection. This leads many to ask why did this Higher Power allow evil or suffering to enter into this world. Many pages in books and religious texts have been written in response to this issue.

Many other believe in "relative Morality" what is Right and Just changes over time and place.

Under Objective Morality one may wait 100 or 200 or 300 years for a child only to be asked to offer it to God. God may cause a great flood that kills 99.9% of the world including babies and puppy dogs. People are turned into Pillars of Salt and the rest ask why are we spared when we are not deserving.

Relative Morality, some called it Humanism, look to imperfect humans to make these very tough decisions. The argument is out of imperfection, what is right and just can be learned on a relative basis.

[keylime]

A few conspiracy theories:

1. Global warming. What a total load of crap.
2. Jails being comfortable. Jails are hell.
3. Media's veracity as they report the news being always negative. Can't we have a story that doesn't involve a star's boobs being lifted?
4. The lack of any concern for the Sudan genocide (can we say Rwanda, part 2?)
5. America being a country that is scum in the eyes of the world. Let me remind some of you that without us you'd be speaking German or Russian right now, with no chance of EVER having freedom.
5. Lastly, why my food-of-choice for the forum is NOT key lime pie. I am REAL bitter about this and I'm about to bring the pain to petition for a special designation. If I can give the bridge world its daily dose of Vitamin C, by golly, I deserve key lime pie instead of "mee pok". What the heck is "mee pok"? That sounds like "me poke".

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 3 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

I think that your objection to a political discussion with a moral component in the context of this thread is that you are reluctant to agree with criticisms of your country (even though at some level you agree with them somewhat, as you said), muting moral criticism of policies with talk of political consensus and lawyer-like "your honor, opposing counsel can't PROVE it's immoral".  Of course I can't prove it.  Most political discussions, even those with little moral content, are rarely provable.  This is why the injection of a moral dimension makes you nervous.. "all the bash america posts make me sad..."

As you are a Christian (and as an atheist, I knew it before you said so), something in the back of your head must be telling you that Jesus would agree with these criticisms.

Peter

i think you completely miss my point.. i don't object at all to arguing anything based on morality... what i object to is the use of the argument while being unable to tell anyone what standards are being used when an act is deemed immoral..

it is philosophically inconsistant to argue that a thing is immoral within the context of a subjective morality... when 2 people view the same occurrance, and one calls it moral while the other immoral, both are correct (if morality is subjective, nobody can say for sure who is wrong)... the whole argument is diluted when one of the pillars upon which it is based can be either black or white... this is elementary

i can easily argue any point based upon morality... i've already stated that if i did so, i'd be against most actions taken by most governments most of the time (the ends/means thingy)... but i can do that because i do believe in objective morality... for this reason, morality can't be one's reason for either condoning or objecting to an act (in the context of this discussion), because the concept itself is, at best, fuzzy for one while not for the other... we can object to actions taken by the u.s. gov't on political grounds, or on economic grounds, or on any other number of grounds... but when we object on moral grounds, we need to at least have some basis that gives us the right to call a thing 'immoral'... if subjective, my morality is every bit as valid as yours, therefore you can never be "right" using that argument...

as proof of subjective morality, you state "It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible."

taking that as a true statement, make your case for subjective morality... read mike's post first

[csdenmark]

luke warm, on Apr 4 2006, 12:44 PM, said:

if morality is subjective, nobody can say for sure who is wrong

Moral is subjective of course. You use your moral standards to messure who you accept as the good guys and who you think are the bad guys.

It is nothing objective - if so then your argument 'national interests' would have been correct. Different political views reflects different moral standards.

We are some who have hard problems to see consistency of general US standards. We are simply unable to see the decent moral standard in violating the right of others to choose for themselves. We pledge you instead to show the good example cleaning up your own house.

[Sigi_BC84]

keylime, on Apr 4 2006, 04:44 AM, said:

1. Global warming. What a total load of crap.

Yeah, let's ignore scientific facts. In this case a good way to continue squandering without feeling bad about it.

Quote

2. Jails being comfortable. Jails are hell.

Not in the Netherlands.

Quote

5. America being a country that is scum in the eyes of the world. Let me remind some of you that without us you'd be speaking German or Russian right now, with no chance of EVER having freedom.

Oops, I do speak German, what went wrong?

Talking about freedom: the US are in the process of dispensing with that concept in the name of homeland security (so are the Europeans, sadly enough).

--Sigi

[Gerben42]

The conspiracy about global warming is that in fact aliens are terraforming our world for them.

Also many important people should read and reread 1984.

[Walddk]

keylime, on Apr 4 2006, 04:44 AM, said:

Let me remind some of you that without us you'd be speaking German or Russian right now

Can't see anything wrong with that. Furthermore, some claim that the language spoken in USA has little to do with English. Finally, some of us speak 6 or 7 languages. How many Americans speak more than one?

Roland

[mike777]

"We are some who have hard problems to see consistency of general US standards. We are simply unable to see the decent moral standard in violating the right of others to choose for themselves. We pledge you instead to show the good example cleaning up your own house."

We are confused! Can you please explain whose rights we need to stop violating? What rights are you talking about? I do not disagree I just do not know what you are talking about.

Is a Country ever allowed to violate other peoples rights? If so then when? Is Pacifism the best way? Is it ever Moral for one person to kill another? For one country to try and kill another?

Who do we not let choose for themselves? If they choose us to fight and die should we or not? We are confused! When do we choose for ourselves and what do we choose?

We are always confused when we should send our children to fight and die.

They are young 18 year old boys and girls. Should we send them to Darfur? Should we send them to Kuwait or the beaches of Normandy? Many in the USA disagree on when and where or if ever we should send our children out to fight and possibly die. We are confused but any help would be nice. We want to clean up our house but most of us (ME) find these issues confusing and that makes us not consistent in general US standards.

[Al_U_Card]

keylime, on Apr 3 2006, 10:44 PM, said:

A few conspiracy theories:

1. Global warming. What a total load of crap.
2. Jails being comfortable. Jails are hell.
3. Media's veracity as they report the news being always negative. Can't we have a story that doesn't involve a star's boobs being lifted?
4. The lack of any concern for the Sudan genocide (can we say Rwanda, part 2?)
5. America being a country that is scum in the eyes of the world. Let me remind some of you that without us you'd be speaking German or Russian right now, with no chance of EVER having freedom.
5. Lastly, why my food-of-choice for the forum is NOT key lime pie. I am REAL bitter about this and I'm about to bring the pain to petition for a special designation. If I can give the bridge world its daily dose of Vitamin C, by golly, I deserve key lime pie instead of "mee pok". What the heck is "mee pok"? That sounds like "me poke".

1. Indeed, but totally our crap.
2. Wouldn't know, hope never to find out.
3. Media=means or method, News=what just happened,Truth....ahhh that's another story
4. Darkest Africa, like darkest N.O. of little interest to white suburbanites
5. America which may still be a shining beacon of freedom when it is not exporting its brand of "Pax Americana"
6 (5?) Whatever. Cutesy names are just that.