Blissfully Uneducated

13567

Comments

  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    question: can I call someone a "ho" if I'm a poor white victim with little or no "influence"....?
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    No, I'm not. You are missing my point. And I'd thank you not to tell me what I can and cannot do.

    I never said moral relativism is false. I'm saying what you think is moral relativism isn't moral relativism.

    Plenty else to say about Christianity's views on women in general. I'm not familiar with what Jesus said about wife beating; though I do know he was rather egalitarian towards women, at least for his time.

    I'm not confusing myself; though I seem to have confused you. I'm saying that whenever conservatives throw around the term "moral relativism" they are using it solely to argue against change in society without regard to what may in fact be "right."

    Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. Liberals suggest that tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times.

    What is "right" is judged by discerning what history and reason teach us about that subject.

    Perhaps some conservatives call any change whatsoever "moral relativism," but that is not what the majority perceive it as. They perceive it as "this is right for me but not right for you," which is moral relativism in a nutshell.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. Liberals suggest that tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times.
    Well, tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times. Just like in an individual's life, sometimes it's O.K. to spend a bunch of money, and sometimes it isn't. And if big government is NEVER okay, why the conservative push for war and police state measures? Government doesn't get any bigger than that.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    What is "right" is judged by discerning what history and reason teach us about that subject.
    Good to see you dropped that "faith" argument and replaced it with history.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Perhaps some conservatives call any change whatsoever "moral relativism," but that is not what the majority perceive it as. They perceive it as "this is right for me but not right for you," which is moral relativism in a nutshell.
    No, it's not - but again, that's beside the point. I don't subscribe to total moral relativism anymore than I subscribe to total moral absolutes. It's not either or.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Conservatives base their morality on moral objectivism. That is: big government is NEVER okay, welfare is NEVER okay, etc. Liberals suggest that tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times.

    What is "right" is judged by discerning what history and reason teach us about that subject.

    Perhaps some conservatives call any change whatsoever "moral relativism," but that is not what the majority perceive it as. They perceive it as "this is right for me but not right for you," which is moral relativism in a nutshell.

    Well, you simply can't dismiss circumstances and shades of gray in life.

    Also, history doesn't show us what is right and wrong. It can show us what has worked and what has failed but to a certain extent that's really irrelevant. Anything that is wrong today was also wrong then...how much we chose to rationalize it depended on circumstances of the time. We are today a different people than in the past..with different circumstances, views, abilities, technologies, etc...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    Well, tax cuts are okay sometimes but not other times. Just like in an individual's life, sometimes it's O.K. to spend a bunch of money, and sometimes it isn't. And if big government is NEVER okay, why the conservative push for war and police state measures? Government doesn't get any bigger than that.

    Good to see you dropped that "faith" argument and replaced it with history.

    No, it's not - but again, that's beside the point. I don't subscribe to total moral relativism anymore than I subscribe to total moral absolutes. It's not either or.

    The fact is, if you believe in ANY moral absolutes whatsoever, you cannot believe in any moral relativism.

    And faith and history run hand in hand, my friend.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Well, you simply can't dismiss circumstances and shades of gray in life.

    Also, history doesn't show us what is right and wrong. It can show us what has worked and what has failed but to a certain extent that's really irrelevant. Anything that is wrong today was also wrong then...how much we chose to rationalize it depended on circumstances of the time. We are today a different people than in the past..with different circumstances, views, abilities, technologies, etc...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future.

    If you forget who you are, you forget where you're going.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    If you forget who you are, you forget where you're going.

    You're constantly changing, every single second. You can't hold on to the past. You can be aware of the past but the past is dead. You must adapt and learn to change with the times or be left behind.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    The fact is, if you believe in ANY moral absolutes whatsoever, you cannot believe in any moral relativism.
    That's wrong. In fact, there's actually a term for exactly what you describe here: Moral Pluralism.
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    And faith and history run hand in hand, my friend.
    Faith is a part of history like an air conditioner is part of a home. I'm just glad you broadened your interpretation a little bit. An air conditioner in an open field doesn't do you any good.
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    That's wrong. In fact, there's actually a term for exactly what you describe here: Moral Pluralism.


    Faith is a part of history like an air conditioner is part of a home. I'm just glad you broadened your interpretation a little bit. An air conditioner in an open field doesn't do you any good.

    False. Moral relativism cannot exist within Moral Objectivism. It's either one or the other. Nice try though!
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    False. Moral relativism cannot exist within Moral Objectivism. It's either one or the other. Nice try though!
    Moral Pluralism. Answer my question, if murder is always wrong, is killing?
  • hailhailkc
    hailhailkc Posts: 582
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    You're constantly changing, every single second. You can't hold on to the past. You can be aware of the past but the past is dead. You must adapt and learn to change with the times or be left behind.

    You've been talking about the past being dead quite a bit lately. Whenever someone brings up Clinton, you say, "That was in the past. Live in the present tense, etc."

    Does this mean that Bush and Co. get the same pass once Bush's term is over. Will he simply be "the past"?

    I doubt it.
    MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
    High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
    Low Traffic CIO MIW
    Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    If you forget who you are, you forget where you're going.

    what if I know who I am but forget where I'm going...?
  • bigdvs
    bigdvs Posts: 235
    "...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future."

    Wait! We have a choice in how our species advances? Its smart sounding half answers like these that VDK in the original post is saying are making college educated people today idealists and not intellects. What you attempted to put forth as fact was just regurgitated opinion that you strongly agree with.

    Unfortunately the human species is no further advanced then it was at the end of the last ice age. Same chemistry, same organs, same life just different settings, gods, leaders, and wars.
    "The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
    — Socrates

  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    bigdvs wrote:
    "...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future."

    Wait! We have a choice in how our species advances? Its smart sounding half answers like these that VDK in the original post is saying are making college educated people today idealists and not intellects. What you attempted to put forth as fact was just regurgitated opinion that you strongly agree with.

    Unfortunately the human species is no further advanced then it was at the end of the last ice age. Same chemistry, same organs, same life just different settings, gods, leaders, and wars.

    define "advanced"...? you say we have not "advanced" yet you go on to mention advancements in thinking and beliefs...
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    RainDog wrote:
    Moral Pluralism. Answer my question, if murder is always wrong, is killing?

    "Value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other."

    I haven't said that once so I'm not sure where you're getting that neat buzz word. Maybe you heard it from one of your beanie-wearing pals at Starbucks.

    I've said that moral relativism cannot exist if moral objectivism is true. Moral objectivism is true. Therefore, moral relativism cannot exist.

    If any morally objective statement is true, then moral relativism fails. Moral relativism is never the correct way to find the answer to a moral problem. It assumes that morality changes with time and attitudes, but it does not. It remains the same. We are the ones trying to discern it. We are changing, becoming closer to the correct moral outlook with time. Human rights are more important today than they were 1000 years ago. That is a drift toward right moral thinking, based on the dignity of human life.

    As for murder vs. killing, I'm not sure where to begin.

    Murder is wrong by definition - killing innocent people can never be justified. Killing can be justified if it is in defense of innocent life.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Murder is wrong by definition - killing innocent people can never be justified. Killing can be justified if it is in defense of innocent life.

    hmmm...that's interesting....so the shock and awe campaign at the onset of the occupation was wrong, you know, bombing the shit out civilian homes (innocent people), was that "wrong"...I say so, do you...?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    hailhailkc wrote:
    You've been talking about the past being dead quite a bit lately. Whenever someone brings up Clinton, you say, "That was in the past. Live in the present tense, etc."

    Does this mean that Bush and Co. get the same pass once Bush's term is over. Will he simply be "the past"?

    I doubt it.

    Certainly you can learn from past experiences but new circumstances will always play a bigger role than using the past as an example for future decisions. New things can become possible once new circumstances arrive.

    Man, I don't even talk about Bush anymore hardly. Everyone knows he's a fuck up and there's no need in harping on it constantly in order to move forward. Yes, Bush will be the past. I can reference how much of a failure he WAS but what does that have to do with the future?
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • CorporateWhore
    CorporateWhore Posts: 1,890
    inmytree wrote:
    hmmm...that's interesting....so the shock and awe campaign at the onset of the occupation was wrong, you know, bombing the shit out civilian homes (innocent people), was that "wrong"...I say so, do you...?

    Well now you're trying to discuss a just war. War will always result in civilian deaths. The question is: are we honestly trying to kill civilians?

    I disagree with this war, but I support our methods in WWII and we killed many civilians in that war. The guilt of those civilians is debatable, I admit, but we were also saving innocent lives by ending the war.
    All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
    -Enoch Powell
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    bigdvs wrote:
    "...history can not rule out possibilites of what can be done to further advance our species in the future."

    Wait! We have a choice in how our species advances? Its smart sounding half answers like these that VDK in the original post is saying are making college educated people today idealists and not intellects. What you attempted to put forth as fact was just regurgitated opinion that you strongly agree with.

    Unfortunately the human species is no further advanced then it was at the end of the last ice age. Same chemistry, same organs, same life just different settings, gods, leaders, and wars.

    Regurgitated? I said that off the top of my head based on my opinion. The term intellect is subjective, also.

    We're simply not the same. Things have improved vastly for our species. The only thing that remains the same is that we are human. The rest all evolves.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • inmytree
    inmytree Posts: 4,741
    CorporateWhore wrote:
    Well now you're trying to discuss a just war. War will always result in civilian deaths. The question is: are we honestly trying to kill civilians?

    I disagree with this war, but I support our methods in WWII and we killed many civilians in that war. The guilt of those civilians is debatable, I admit, but we were also saving innocent lives by ending the war.

    a pretty "gray" response....I thought this was about "absolutes"...and you said "killing innocent people can never be justified" but then you justify the killing of innocents...

    this shit is confusing...

Categories