Saddam challenges Bush to televised debate

[Guest JMA]

What you're asking for is a short course in metaphysics that I'm not sure anyone here is qualified to give. Of course, if anyone did, you'd just say that those facts applied to them, but not you, because you'd be conveniently satisfied with relativism at that point.

 

Suffice to say, there's a reason that ethicists don't embrace relativism. Relativism, taken to its logical conclusion of every culture having self-determined morals, leads to relativists having to say things like, "I disagree with stoning a Nigerian woman to death for becoming pregnant out of wedlock, but it's their right to assert their culture and be celebrated for it." The English language doesn't have the words to express how absurd that is.

 

Personally, I'm of the belief that there ARE a priori morals, but that people can't necessarily prove them with any degree of certainty any more than people can conclusively prove their religion as the one true faith. Laws, commandments and precepts are not infallible but are attempts by humans to approximate these essential moral rules that are already in existence. Just my view, of course.

I see current humanity being based around the ideas of society. What is bad for society, naturally, is considered "bad." And we can equate evil to doing harm to another.

[Guest Ace309]

I can see your mouth moving, but nothing of substance is coming out.

 

The survival instinct and ethics are two completely different things. Furthermore, you're making a blanket statement that can't possibly apply anywhere. I'd love to sit down and refute it, but there are thousands of years of European and American philosophy that have done the job nicely for me. Do some reading and some thinking on the topic before you blindly defend your ideas.

[Guest JMA]

I can see your mouth moving, but nothing of substance is coming out.

 

The survival instinct and ethics are two completely different things. Furthermore, you're making a blanket statement that can't possibly apply anywhere. I'd love to sit down and refute it, but there are thousands of years of European and American philosophy that have done the job nicely for me. Do some reading and some thinking on the topic before you blindly defend your ideas.

I'm not blindly defending them. I don't really need to defend them. These aren't my ideas, either. Are the survival instinst and ethics really that differant? We all yearn to survive, but sometimes that survival comes at the cost of another. Thus, selfishness is born.

[Guest DrTom]

I'm not here to make you feel good about yourself...  Your ego can't allow it...  Do you have some kind of self-esteem problems?

Yes, you figured me out. I'm a self-loathing bully who gets my jollies cyberkicking people in their e-teeth. The reality is that I don't invest things like ego in what I write in an online messageboard. Other people do, and that's fine for them. Every now and then, I get riled up about something, and respond in kind. It doesn't happen often, though.

 

Are you...

 

1: Trying to make me feel bad about myself because I made you angry?

 

2: Trying to educate me (something you see as idiotic; however wrong that may be) on the world?

 

3: Just being a prick?

 

4: Post-whoring?

 

5: Just want to rant?

 

6: Letting out anger?

 

7: Other (if so, please explain).

1. Nope. I can't make anyone feel a certain way. If you feel bad, that's on you.

2. It certainly couldn't hurt.

3. I've never denied being a prick.

4. Nope.

5. Not really.

6. I have a punching bag for that.

7. I think we've covered it all nicely.

 

What is your goal by posting? To inform, to hurt my feelings, or just to speak what you consider the truth? These questions are just for you, Tom. You personally. If you're just going to soew a bunch of crap (like your previous post) don't bother. Eh, why am I even trying? You won't do that. You'll simply quote what I've typed, try to debunk it using "witty" remarks, and generally show your anger. That's all.

My goal in posting is always to debate, argue, or converse dispassionately. Sometimes, I see something that gets my Irish up and puts an edge in what I say. I used to do it A LOT in years past, but I've mellowed a lot since 1995 or so, when I first got online. What I consider the truth, and what you think is crap because you can't meaningfully examine your life if someone presents it to you with a little acid, is what I presented last time. No "witty" remarks are required, and I'm far from angry while I'm typing this. But if illusions to the contrary make you feel better, keep using them.

 

In light of the olive branch you've recently extended, I think this is all that needs to be said for now.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"I really don't care. I'm not here to make you feel good about yourself..."

 

OMG, I'm laughing so hard right now I can't see the screen due to the tears running down my eyes.

 

Dude, this is a Internet Message Board. You gots to chill.

 

BTW: Seeing how old Tom is, he can call just about anyone here (except me) "kid..."

[Guest EricMM]

Let me propose a question: Are morals real?

Yes, very much so.

Are they the things which keep us from being ruthless and violent animals?

Depends. I would say, yes, they keep us from being needlessly violent. It's not okay to kick a four year old in the face with steel toed boots until s/he does. That's immoral. It IS ok to shoot the person who is about to curb stomp a four year old. See?

 

How do you determine what your individual morals are? Does your religion determine it? Do your political beliefs determine it?

No, because there are some truely fucked up religions and political parties out there. Just because they're different doesn't mean they're valid. If they are so different that they condone the oppression of a gender just because their stupid religion tells them to, then they're IMMORAL.

 

What constitutes "right" and "wrong"?

This is not that hard, and you know what the answer is you're just hiding from it. Is it okay to strap a bomb onto yourself and walk into a mall? No, it's never ok. I don't care if the palastinans don't have any real weapons. If they had braincell one, they'd emulate the non-violent resistance movements of Ghandi or King. That would WORK, and they'd have their state by now. But no, they're fucking crazy down there. And don't tell me that the Israeli army is supposed to sit there and take it, they're doing exactly what the US is doing right now, protecting itself against IMMORAL and UNREASONABLE people.

 

Are the laws infallible in these aspects?

No, there are rarely, but occasionally exceptions to all things.

 

Are right and wrong differant for each person? If so, how can there be a single, thinking mind of the concepts of right and wrong? I like to question life and all its mysteries. I have no answers, only questions

Here are some answers. Just because you're a downtrodden minority doesn't mean you can't be evil, just because you're poor and oppressed doesn't mean you're right. The Islamic lifestyle has led the middle east to it's current situation, and our lifestyle has led us to our current situation. Who's lifestyle do you think is better?

[Guest Ace309]

Question for Dreamer.

 

Obviously you think it's unjust to bomb Saddam. This is inconsistent with the classical definition of "justice" as "each person getting what he or she deserves." Please redefine justice, or explain why Saddam does not deserve to be obliterated.