Results 161 to 170 of 230
|
-
-
12-09-2012, 12:56 AM
In a society with a mindset of no right or wrong we certainly do lose. Only in this society can you justify the ending of an innocent life a matter of choice. Only in this society can a mother strap her 2 children into their car seats and roll the car into the lake and have it not be her fault. Only in this society can a woman drown her children one by one and it not be her fault. Only in this society can a group of people beat another person near death and have it explained away. The more and more the moral decline of this country takes hold, we cease being a society and begin to be a rotting cesspool.
The American Left: Where everything is politics and politics is everything.
-
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Bavaria
- Posts
- 9,156
-
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Posts
- 272
-
12-09-2012, 12:54 PM
Once again, it is you who is ducking the question. The exchange started with this:
Originally Posted by Odysseus
You are assuming that all persons, looking at the same situation, would come to the same conclusions based on the same logical thought process. This is one of the fallacies of those who assume that logic must dictate values and conduct. One can logically decide that a baby has no immediate value, and can therefore be disposed of. Logic, unhinged from any values, breeds more than its share of atrocities.
You employed no logic that would apply to the right to life.
Suppose I need a kidney and you are a perfect match. Does my right to life mean I have a right to one of your kidneys or does your right to control your body usurp my right to life?
And exactly why is it you see logic unhinged from an values...do you honestly think logic cannot lead us to common values and respect?
Now, when you raised the issue of needing a kidney, I answered your questions. The fact is that there are those who believe that you have no right to your kidney if someone else needs it to live. They can argue their positions with logic, but unless the basic premises are shared, in this case, that there is a right to your own body, then that argument will eventually devolve into a conflict of values which cannot be overcome by logic. It's just their preferences vs. yours.
Beats me. I'm Jewish, and highly lapsed, at that.
You are creating a straw man argument. To state that logic, by itself, does not necessary lead to a moral outcome, does not automatically mean that we must abandon it to a completely irrational faith. Faith, is not, by itself, irrational, since believers can express logical reasons for their belief. But, when it is irrational, it becomes fanaticism, and is just as destructive as secular logic without values.
Rationalism and faith together gave us the Renaissance and the enlightenment. Rationalism alone gave us the gulags. Rationalism alone gives us the means to any end, but the determination of the end is a moral decision, not a logical one.
We do want freedom. We just don't think that a small group of judges dictating the rules of our lives based on their whims constitutes freedom. The Constitution is the law of the land, and the Constitution was written in simple, clear language that even a judge should be able to understand. You dislike citizens united, because you believe that corporations should be able to influence elections, but the NY Times is a corporation. Why is it that the Times can endorse a candidate on the OPED page (and omit embarrassing news on the front page) without any issue, but if I were to buy an ad right next to that endorsement and repeated the contents of it, it would be illegal by your logic?
No, but then, irrational arguments generally leave me cold. A display of a historical document doesn't infringe my rights, and I'm a member of a minority. It doesn't threaten yours, either, but it does offend you, which is not a rational decision, but an emotional one.
Two things. First, I'm sorry for your Grandmother's horrific experience, but that level of abuse was always grounds for divorce, even back in the 1800s. She did have that option, but chose not to act on it. Second, you're an adult? Seriously? The way that you argue here, I assumed that we were dealing with a college kid.
Your grandmother's experience was highly atypical. Most marriages don't entail 40 years of physical abuse, and the laws back then had remedies, which she either didn't know about, or chose not to take up. It wasn't religion that kept her married, it was her choice, and clearly there may have been rational choices that kept her there (financial security, desire to provide for her children, or maybe she did love him, despite everything). The point is that you are blaming religion for her life, instead of recognizing that she had options that she chose not to take. That's the kind of secular irrationality that we've come to expect from liberals, even as they pride themselves on their rationality.Last edited by Odysseus; 12-09-2012 at 01:04 PM.
--Odysseus
Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.
Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
-
-
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
- Posts
- 10,192
-
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- Bavaria
- Posts
- 9,156
12-09-2012, 06:03 PM
He's not whining. You're just trying to provide your fellow Libtard Small Peter a diversion.
Honestly...what the hell scares you Libs so much about a kid uttering the word God in front of a bunch of other school kids?
Are you afraid the whole place will suddenly stand up and collectively reject the amoral indoctrination the teachers are shoving down their throats?
-
-
12-10-2012, 04:23 PM
Correct. However it is mentioned in the explanation of a certain rule in one of our founding documents.
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
“A creative man is motivated by the desire to achieve, not by the desire to beat others.” – Ayn Rand
Power Point Ranger
« Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
Students target frats for...
Today, 05:27 PM in Social Justice Warriors!!!