[han]

I'd have expected more from you hannie.. you know that's not even close to what i said


Hmm, I've got to reread all your posts then. I thought that this was more or less your message: Without a god, there is no way distinguish good and bad, there is no moral difference between a murderer and, say, me.

I'm not a religious person, nor do I have a strong background in philosophy. Perhaps that makes it impossible for me to understand your posts.

[keylime]

I confess: I reread Jimmy's posts. I think I get where he's going towards.

If the Bush administration is worse than the UN is, I'll eat my underwear in front of the White House (since I live only 45 miles away from it). Then, to make my point very clear, I'll renounce my citizenship and move to Venezuela to become a worshipper of Chavez's regime.

Folks, it's long overdue to call the elephant in the living room. Get the UN out of the US. Just them slighting the Danish people with their discriminatory add about racism three weeks ago warrants the UN being cut off from ALL US subsidy. Coupled with the oil-for-food scandal and the Darfur genocide that is ongoing...yeah, I think the UN deserves to be sunseted exactly the same way the League of Nations did.

Oh yeah, while I'm on a roll here - STOP the darn reconquistas too.

[helene_t]

Quote

here's a moral statement... "the rape and torture of small children is evil" ... assume that morality is subjective... what frame of reference exists that would make that statement any more true than "the rape and torture of small children is not evil?"

Lets give it a try. The frame of reference could, for example, be

1: "It can be mathematically proven that ....."
Does not qualify. But hen again, it never could. Moral judgement is beyond the scopes of mathematics.

2: "According to objective moral, ...."
Objective moral does not exist, of course. It occurs to me that you and Peter accuse each other for believing in objective moral, while everybody agress it does not exist.

3: "I'm stronger than you so you'd better agree that ...... since otherwise I'd beat you up"
You said (if I understood you correctly) that the only alternative to objective moral is "might makes right", so this seems to be the only frame of reference that remains after we have agreed to trash the objective moral. But as I've said a couple of times, I disagree. I believe that there are more useful alternatives to objective moral than this one.

4: "It is Jimmy's opinion that ......"
Much better. Statements made within this frame of reference are useful to those who know you and to those who want to know you better. Besides, since you believe that rape and torture is immoral (I presume), it actually qualifies.

5: "According to the vast majority of contemporary Western philosofers, ....."
That's would probably be the most useful frame of reference for a forum like this one. And as for rape and torture, it happens to qualify, I think.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

If the Bush administration is worse than the UN is, I'll eat my underwear in front of the White House (since I live only 45 miles away from it). Then, to make my point very clear, I'll renounce my citizenship and move to Venezuela to become a worshipper of Chavez's regime.

Folks, it's long overdue to call the elephant in the living room. Get the UN out of the US. Just them slighting the Danish people with their discriminatory add about racism three weeks ago warrants the UN being cut off from ALL US subsidy. Coupled with the oil-for-food scandal and the Darfur genocide that is ongoing...yeah, I think the UN deserves to be sunseted exactly the same way the League of Nations did.

Oh yeah, while I'm on a roll here - STOP the darn reconquistas too.

Threads like this one are why its so dangerous to allow discussions about religion and politics at the dinner table.

Time was, if I had met Keylime at a bridge tournament I might have invited him to grab a beer and discuss a few hands... Those days are long past.

[Al_U_Card]

hrothgar, on Apr 7 2006, 01:41 PM, said:

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 08:34 PM, said:

If the Bush administration is worse than the UN is, I'll eat my underwear in front of the White House (since I live only 45 miles away from it). Then, to make my point very clear, I'll renounce my citizenship and move to Venezuela to become a worshipper of Chavez's regime.

Folks, it's long overdue to call the elephant in the living room. Get the UN out of the US. Just them slighting the Danish people with their discriminatory add about racism three weeks ago warrants the UN being cut off from ALL US subsidy. Coupled with the oil-for-food scandal and the Darfur genocide that is ongoing...yeah, I think the UN deserves to be sunseted exactly the same way the League of Nations did.

Oh yeah, while I'm on a roll here - STOP the darn reconquistas too.

Threads like this one are why its so dangerous to allow discussions about religion and politics at the dinner table.

Time was, if I had met Keylime at a bridge tournament I might have invited him to grab a beer and discuss a few hands... Those days are long past.

Or useful, you mean. If nothing else it has saved you from an unpleasant evening of hand discussion over beer that might have turned philosophical.

[keylime]

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

I defended this country, so that I would have the priviledge of doing exactly this. The choice in my eyes is a simple one - do we, as a country, even with our many faults, continue to shine for the billions of the people of this world as a beacon of hope....or do we let ourselves slide into dhimmitude?

[Sigi_BC84]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 08:28 PM, said:

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

You are sounding more and more deranged. Let me remind you that you jumped at somebody's throat because that person dared to post the sentence "The worst invention is religion". Now you ramble about free speech.

Let's talk about double moral standards again.

--Sigi

[keylime]

If you think I'm deranged, then why post? Just because I firmly believe in what I choose to believe in, doesn't mandate a stab at my mental state. That's an insult to my character, and the millions of people who like me deal with actual disorders on a daily basis. It's people like you why the stigma of mental illness is so prevalent in many societies. Nice, real nice.

Furthermore if you really think I have a double moral standard, read my posts again. I don't think consistency of view is an issue with me.

Scary how people can't handle a dissenting view.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 10:28 PM, said:

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

Dwayne:

No one is trying to limit your right to speech.
No one is trying to dictate your belief system.

I am merely questioning whether it is necessary for individuals to trumpet their political / religious beliefs any chance they get. I don't think that political trolling has a place on this bulletin board. Furthermore, I think that a number of your posts fall within this category.

[keylime]

Richard,

And others aren't?

We may not agree often, but I still carry a high measure of respect for you, because you aren't shy about saying what's on your mind.

I, with as bad as my langauge is, am attempting to do the same.

[Sigi_BC84]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 09:01 PM, said:

If you think I'm deranged, then why post? Just because I firmly believe in what I choose to believe in, doesn't mandate a stab at my mental state. That's an insult to my character, and the millions of people who like me deal with actual disorders on a daily basis. It's people like you why the stigma of mental illness is so prevalent in many societies. Nice, real nice.

Look, all I've said is that you sound deranged. This was a comment targeted at your "policitical and religious trolling" (as quite nicely put by Richard) in combination with your apparent inability to deal with the fact that some people actually couldn't care less about God (or the US, or Bush, or ...).

Quote

Furthermore if you really think I have a double moral standard, read my posts again. I don't think consistency of view is an issue with me.

My remark was not about your policital/religious views expressed here but about the double moral standards that you (apparently) apply towards free speech. To put it bluntly: Dwayne may trumpet anything but don't you dare to touch one of his holy cows (no pun about holiness intended). My apologies if I'm wrong here, but this is the impression one gets when reading that posting of yours above.

Quote

Scary how people can't handle a dissenting view.

It is not your views but your way of expressing them that I find difficult to handle (in case you don't understand what I'm talking about here: you keep making highly controversial statements without backing them with any arguments, apparently for no other reason but aggravating the readers of this thread).

--Sigi

[joshs]

Well, I love you all. Now, I must be deranged!

I figure that I will not bring up the exciting discovery of the gospel of judas, and instead bring open for debate the proposition that:
"God is not a Red Sox fan".

This I am sure will provide a subject where we can find agreement between

a. athiests, who happen to be red sox fans, and
b. religious folks who dislike the red sox and
c. Followers of Spinoza who think god went into hybernation after creating the universe and
d. Anyone who thinks Barry Bonds taking steroids is a good thing

[mike777]

We in the know all realize God is a Cubs fan. We have objective proof of this.

Flying to game on Saturday, will try and bring back proof next week for all. .

Can we get Bill James to bring his stats over from the dark side(Boston) to the side of goodness and light?

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 11:23 PM, said:

We may not agree often, but I still carry a high measure of respect for you, because you aren't shy about saying what's on your mind.

I, with as bad as my langauge is, am attempting to do the same.

To me there is a fundamental difference between bridge and politics/religion.

Bridge is a game. Its a silly little pastime. At the end of the day, none of it actually matters. I have no problem with people making forceful arguments about bridge because no one is really going to take things too seriously. At the end of the day, if I make a stupid bid or butcher yet another defense I'm going to feel a bit foolish but its not going to matter one bit.

On the other hand, politics and religion are something that I am deadily serious about.

I have walked away from a lucrative consulting deal because of the owner's political affiliation. I refuse to spend money with Walmart and Exxon because of the corporate policies. Its been many a year since I've ordered a pizza from Dominos. I transferred a lot of assets out of Bank of America as a result of some rather lopsided political contributions.

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE to argue politics. I have some very strongly held opinions here and many of them are quite controversial. However, in my experience political debates often get emotional. Soon after they get really REALLY ugly.

[luke warm]

[quote name='pbleighton' date='Apr 7 2006, 07:35 AM']"my point is, if morality is subjective, then you cannot say that your morality is any more "right" than theirs... if you can say that, how? it has nothing to do with the act, it concerns your use of the word 'immoral' regarding that act"

My point is, can you?[/quote]
i don't have to.. as i said on two separate occasions (now 3), "no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light "

as you can see yet again, i don't think morality has any place in a political discussion, though i absolutely agree with your right to introduce it... however, if you do introduce it (and you did), you can't then call on me to defend something i never stated or implied... i simply objected to your use of the word and attempted to find out how you could state it as a fact when your words paint a different picture

[quote]You are the one who introduced "objective" versus "subjective" morality, a straw man IMO, but obviously important to you. [/quote]
say huh? do you know what a straw man argument is? i simply asked you a question, which you answered... i never introduced anything of the kind

[quote]Is your morality "objective" or "subjective", in your opinion?  I answered your direct question on this, haveing no problem with my position.  Why are you so reluctant to answer mine?[/quote]
because (as i now state for the 4th time), " ... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

i did not introduce morality and refuse to defend whatever position you wish to give me simply because you wish to give it... i will defend statements i make, but not statements you want me to make

[quote name='han']Hmm, I've got to reread all your posts then. I thought that this was more or less your message: Without a god, there is no way distinguish good and bad, there is no moral difference between a murderer and, say, me.[/quote]
no, that wasn't my message at all (although i can probably make a good case for it)... i had no message, peter did... i objected to his use of the word, that's all...

[quote]I'm not a religious person, nor do I have a strong background in philosophy. Perhaps that makes it impossible for me to understand your posts. [/quote]
i don't know many people more intelligent than you, so background or not i doubt you'd have too much trouble with understanding... in a nutshell, here it is:

in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof

in an attempt to find out why he thought those acts were immoral, i simply asked upon what he based his views... i asked if he viewed morality as objective or subjective... he stated "subjective"... so naturally it occurred to me (as it will to you) that if morality is indeed subjective, his statement that a thing (any thing) is immoral carries no more weight that the one who states that the same thing is moral.. in an attempt to stem the tide, he tried to get me to defend "objective morality"... i refuse to defend something i never affirmed... he introduced a straw man into the discussion

[quote name='helene']1: "It can be mathematically proven that ....."
Does not qualify. But hen again, it never could. Moral judgement is beyond the scopes of mathematics.[/quote]
i agree

[quote]2: "According to objective moral, ...."
Objective moral does not exist, of course. It occurs to me that you and Peter accuse each other for believing in objective moral, while everybody agress it does not exist.[/quote]
well to state "objective moral[ity] does not exist, of course..." simply begs the question... i haven't accused peter of anything, i haven't had to... he quite plainly stated that "morality is subjective" ... he has tried to accuse me of stating the converse, but i never did so

[quote]3: "I'm stronger than you so you'd better agree that ...... since otherwise I'd beat you up"
You said (if I understood you correctly) that the only alternative to objective moral is "might makes right", so this seems to be the only frame of reference that remains after we have agreed to trash the objective moral. But as I've said a couple of times, I disagree. I believe that there are more useful alternatives to objective moral than this one.[/quote]
we didn't exactly agree to trash objective morality ... the 'might makes right' argument goes something like this... in a world of subjective morality, the jew thinks it is immoral to gas their race by the millions, while the nazi disagrees... the nazis won that debate by force of arms, thus the morality inherent in their worldview prevailed... other countries, also thinking the gassing of the jews was immoral, put a stop to it... their opinion of morality was upheld by force of arms... BUT, both the gassing and its cessation were moral in any worldview that states morality is subjective...

[quote]4: "It is Jimmy's opinion that ......"
Much better. Statements made within this frame of reference are useful to those who know you and to those who want to know you better. Besides, since you believe that rape and torture is immoral (I presume), it actually qualifies.[/quote]
i agree, that's *much* better... however, note that in a world of subjective morality, my morality is still only an "opinion"

[quote]5: "According to the vast majority of contemporary Western philosofers, ....."
That's would probably be the most useful frame of reference for a forum like this one. And as for rape and torture, it happens to qualify, I think. [/quote]
yes, that could qualify... but that's basically the 'might makes right' argument in a context where philosophical thought has replaced bullets (imo)

[quote name='richard']However, in my experience political debates often get emotional.[/quote]
yes they do, and often they get every bit as emotional as religious debates (with the same zeal that's often found in the latter) ... a debate, to be worthy of the word, must follow certain well-established rules of engagement... emotionalism is not one of those rules

[joshs]

"...yes, but objectivity is subjective..." - from Love and Death, Woody Allen

[pbleighton]

"a debate, to be worthy of the word, must follow certain well-established rules of engagement... emotionalism is not one of those rules"

Whe you introduced the concept of "objective morality" (you did this, not me) into the discussion, and then refused to discuss where you stand on it, then you have violated a well-established rule of engagement, which is:

Don't be a chicken in a debate

"An immoral bunch we non-believers are, we can't even decide whether rape and torture are good or bad. Pray for me Jimmy."

Very nice, Hannie

I think I have figured out what happened to Jimmy's posts in this thread. He found himself in a minority, taking offense at statements made by the majority, particularly my posts (possibly because I am a U.S. citizen, and should not criticize my country in front of foreigners). He can't really engage on the merits of the morality of U.S. foreign policy, because, as he has admitted, he agrees with at least some of the criticism. His patriotism and his morality are in conflict. He has focused on my lack of "objective morality", in order to disqualify my judgment that certain acts of U.S. foreign policy are immoral, a judgment not so incidentally shared by a large majority of the world's population. This argument makes no sense whatsoever to any of the other posters in this thread (as far as I can tell), but he clings to it. It does seem like something you'd expect from a bright teenager who has discovered how to use intellectual-sounding arguments to irritate adults, which is weird because Jimmy is even older than I am, and his posts on bridge are usually pretty good, but no matter. He doesn't really want his argument examined too closely, however, so he refuses to say whether he thinks there is such a thing as "objective morality", and claims victory instead.

To use a bridge analogy...

He is defending 3NT, holding as his last card the two of spades. The declarer is on lead, having taken eight tricks, and leads the ace of clubs. Jimmy plunks down the two of spades and says.....

"You forgot to draw trump!"

Peter

[csdenmark]

A bit help here to those asking for documentation of human right abuses committed by others than USA.



This is about revealings of norwegians forcing german surrenders to clear mines in 1945.

This a a link to Verdens Gang, the biggest norwegian newspaper. Norwegian language only

[csdenmark]

Maybe soon time for all to realize USA will be heading for new troubles:



THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-10

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 7 2006, 09:35 PM, said:

When you introduced the concept of "objective morality" (you did this, not me) into the discussion

you can keep repeating that as often as you like, but anyone who has followed our posts can easily see your error... the first time morality was mentioned, Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, you said these two things:

" ... it is wrong to topple foreign governments ... " and "It is morally wrong."

you introduced something into the debate, and i had the right to ask for clarification, which i did by asking the nature of this morality to which you referred... you clarified by stating that your morality is subjective...

it's exactly the same thing as if i'd said something like "it's obvious God exists" and you sought clarification by asking "to which God do you refer, the christian God or some other god?"... if i answered "the christian God," i could not then accuse you of introducing "some other god" into the discussion... an honest reading of the posts by anyone will show the truth here

Quote

and then refused to discuss where you stand on it, then you have violated a well-established rule of engagement, which is:

Don't be a chicken in a debate 

i did state where i stood on it, peter... as above, anyone who wishes to be truthful about this will note that i said, here for the 5th time, " ... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

so you asked where i stood on the subject and i said morality has no place in a political debate, in my opinion... therefore, i will not argue either side from a moral standpoint... you are free to do so, but not without being challenged on your statements... to attempt to make me defend a concept i have disaffirmed is dishonest

Quote

I think I have figured out what happened to Jimmy's posts in this thread.  He found himself in a minority, taking offense at statements made by the majority, particularly my posts (possibly because I am a U.S. citizen, and should not criticize my country in front of foreigners).

being in the minority doesn't bother me... my arguments were all reasoned and without emotion... you assert your opinions as fact (that i was "..taking offense..", for example) and expect not to be challenged on them... i took no offense, i merely objected to statements you'd made...

to show that your parenthetical remark above is exactly opposite of what was said, thus how it doesn't comport with the facts, on Apr 1 2006, 09:09 AM i said "i'll abide legitimate criticism... i'll even level criticism at this gov't, on occasion... i personally wish we weren't in iraq at this moment, for example.. there are a lot of policies implemented by both the president and the congress with which i disagree.."

anyone who cares to look can see that several of your statements do not comport well at all with the words i have used

Quote

He can't really engage on the merits of the morality of U.S. foreign policy, because, as he has admitted, he agrees with at least some of the criticism.

you have made and continue to make elementary mistakes in your tactics... first, i can't engage on the merits of the morality of the us because i don't happen to believe that morality and government can be used in the same context... and yes, i do agree with some of the things america has done, things you disagree with... so what? i don't agree and i don't disagree on moral grounds (though i could)... you do, therefore you bear that burden

Quote

He has focused on my lack of "objective morality", in order to disqualify my judgment that certain acts of U.S. foreign policy are immoral, a judgment not so incidentally shared by a large majority of the world's population. 

might makes right? in any case, i have focused on your statement that morality is subjective in order to ascertain why you think your opinions (or morality) is better than anybody else's.. if one makes a moral argument one has to be prepared to defend it.. to say "everybody agrees with me," whether true or not, is not a defense

Quote

It does seem like something you'd expect from a bright teenager who has discovered how to use intellectual-sounding arguments to irritate adults, which is weird because Jimmy is even older than I am, and his posts on bridge are usually pretty good, but no matter.

this is simply insulting, and i'll not to stoop to that level.. i have not said anything of a personal nature to or about you... it does nothing to bolster your position, and probably has the opposite effect with others

Quote

He doesn't really want his argument examined too closely, however, so he refuses to say whether he thinks there is such a thing as "objective morality", and claims victory instead.

actually i'd love for others, whether philosophically aligned with you or me, to examine both our posts to see the logic contained... i do think some haven't commented because they don't wish to be seen as defending american policies with which they disagree, even though that discussion seems to be a thing of the past... as for defending 'objective morality', i have to ask again - why must i defend a position i never took simply because you seem incapable of defending one you did take? as i said below, i did not introduce morality and refuse to defend whatever position you wish to give me simply because you wish to give it... i will defend statements i make, but not statements you want me to make

which of these do you disagree with?

in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof

josh said:

"...yes, but objectivity is subjective..." - from Love and Death, Woody Allen

lol