ATTN: Cal

[VaporTrail]

Hey, in the other topic, you said this.

 

But, alas, to no avail - liberal's hearts are cold, their minds are closed, and whatever "it" is, they're against it.

 

We could easily say the exact same things about you concerning war and the greater good. The problem is that we care about different things. I saw this video the other day, and I was a little reluctant to post it because it's really long, but it's a really interesting TED talk about the roots of liberal and conservative ideologies.

 

Libs aren't as cold and callous as you think us to be, and I'm willing to bet that you're not as closed-minded as I think you to be. You're just passionate about different things. But really, the whole "linear thinking" thing bugs me because I can just as easily say the same thing about you on different topics.

 

So, if you have 20 minutes to spare, I'd like it if you'd check this video out and tell me your thoughts.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/jonathan...moral_mind.html

[calfoxwc]

Well, that was pretty good. He did alienate me with his bias in using a single quote about Pres Bush out of context,

 

and referring to all the red states in that election as "stupid".

 

Kinda closed minded and bigoted of him.

 

But, he makes some fine points otherwise.

 

I find fault with some of the premises upon which he bases his conclusions.

 

for instance, liberals are more OPEN MINDED? eh.. not about the murder of unborn children.

Not about, (we're talkin trends here) the private ownership of weapons. guns. hunting.

 

Not about God, nor those who are religious. It would seem that their openmindedness simply translates as

anti-status quo reaching out for "new and un-status quo", regardless of morality and common sense.

 

He says that liberals value CARE and FAIRNESS more than the remaining three of the five fundamental moral values.

 

He also says that conservatives consider ALL FIVE equally. So, I would submit to you,

that conservatives consider the five elements COMPREHENSIVELY,

and liberals consider only the first two in thinking emotionally and LINEARLY.

 

Liberals, in thinking linearly, tend to be unable to consider all five with equal importance.

 

which, lends itself to what I said earlier about Sherlock. He didn't deduce the solving of a mystery on the first two,

he used all five.

 

the trouble is, Vapor, that I find the liberals' linear thinking seriously inconsistent with true belief.

 

Consider CARE. protecting others from harm. but they couldn't care less that a family out in the country

can't defend themselves from intruders/burglars/murderers without their 2nd Amendment right to have a gun in their home.

 

Where is CARE when considering the lives of unborn children? Do liberals protect others from harm by

advocating the immoral convenience of murdering unwanted unborn children?

 

Justice? I can repost the FBI undercover agent interview where he said the weathermen group he was in a meeting with,

coldly considered having to "eliminate" millions of people who would never accept their marxist revolution.

 

Bill Ayers was there. Where was "care and fairness" ? No, I consider liberals locked into emotionalism,

and anti-status quo elitism. The "care and fairness" is so convoluted and conflicting that

I tend to never understand liberals at all.

***********************************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Haidt

 

(from Wikipedia)

 

Moral Foundations TheoryHis Moral Foundations Theory looks at the way morality varies between cultures and identifies five fundamental moral values shared to a greater or lesser degree by different societies and individuals.^[2] These are:

 

1. Care for others, protecting them from harm. (He also referred to this dimension as Harm.)
2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
3. Loyalty to your group, family, nation. (He also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
4. Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. (He also referred to this dimension as Authority.)
5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tend to value care and fairness considerably higher than loyalty, respect, and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans value all five values more equally, though at a lower level than the liberal concern for care and fairness. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Similar results were found across the political spectrum in other countries.^[3]

[VaporTrail]

Well, that was pretty good. He did alienate me with his bias in using a single quote about Pres Bush out of context,

 

and referring to all the red states in that election as "stupid".

 

Kinda closed minded and bigoted of him.

 

Just as closed-minded and bigoted of your blanket statement of anything liberal.

 

I find fault with some of the premises upon which he bases his conclusions.

 

for instance, liberals are more OPEN MINDED? eh.. not about the murder of unborn children.

Not about, (we're talkin trends here) the private ownership of weapons. guns. hunting.

 

Not about God, nor those who are religious. It would seem that their openmindedness simply translates as

anti-status quo reaching out for "new and un-status quo", regardless of morality and common sense.

 

Morality and common sense are completely relative. You see morality as absolute, and anyone that disagrees with your view of morality is wrong. That is what is meant by open-minded. Because you hold those other 3 traits in higher regard, it narrows your ability to even consider thinking from any other viewpoint.

 

He says that liberals value CARE and FAIRNESS more than the remaining three of the five fundamental moral values.

 

He also says that conservatives consider ALL FIVE equally. So, I would submit to you,

that conservatives consider the five elements COMPREHENSIVELY,

and liberals consider only the first two in thinking emotionally and LINEARLY.

 

Just because conservatives tend to use five traits to make decisions, it doesn't necessarily make them better. Which is what you're implying. Liberals, too, consider all five traits, we just consider two of them more important than the other three, but all five are still considered. There's nothing that says conservatives are better thinkers because of what traits they hold important.

 

Liberals, in thinking linearly, tend to be unable to consider all five with equal importance.

 

which, lends itself to what I said earlier about Sherlock. He didn't deduce the solving of a mystery on the first two,

he used all five.

 

But holding them all equal doesn't necessarily make a conservative a well-rounded person. You get people that hold purity as high as the other things, and it's these people that cannot accept homosexuality between two consenting adults. You get people saying that they shouldn't be married because it's an attack on the institution of marriage (whatever that means). I can just as easily say that this is linear thinking.

 

the trouble is, Vapor, that I find the liberals' linear thinking seriously inconsistent with true belief.

 

That's because you think there is a 'true' belief, whereas I think that everything is completely relative. And this goes back to the open-mindedness that the speaker brought up.

 

Consider CARE. protecting others from harm. but they couldn't care less that a family out in the country

can't defend themselves from intruders/burglars/murderers without their 2nd Amendment right to have a gun in their home.

 

I agree with you here. If there's one glaringly hypocritical thing that most people left of center bitch about, it's this. They're all about freedom of religion in the first amendment, but the way many twist the second amendment is plain hypocrisy.

 

Where is CARE when considering the lives of unborn children? Do liberals protect others from harm by

advocating the immoral convenience of murdering unwanted unborn children?

 

This is exactly where Fairness and Respect/Authority come into play. But before we can even go into it, you need to accept that not everyone considers abortion to be murder. Because this is up for debate, the fairness of forcing a woman to bear a child is what determines a liberal's perspective on the issue. Along with that, because your religious authority says that abortion is murder, you take that to be true. This is why the two sides will never see eye-to-eye.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

I know no religious authority outside of what I understand of the Bible - the Word of God.

 

That, and falling into a spring in single digits temp in the middle of winter in the woods by myself when I was a kid on our farm...

 

I don't go to church anymore, haven't for decades. Churches are fine with me, unless there are people there.... @@

 

To a degree, of course over many many years, I develop, like most do, beliefs, principles and values that I stand by.

 

You are saying, apparently, that liberals are "open-minded" because they don't have any idea of right and wrong?

 

They have NO values, NO principles and zero beliefs on any issues, except for the LACK of belief and the LACK

 

of principles and the LACK of values.

 

You say "open-mindedness" I say "empty lost vessel". That leads me to believe, that liberals compensate for being "empty and lost" by becoming extremely arrogant and elitist in

 

NOT being beholden to their own developed beliefs, values, and principles. nada. liberals got nothin. And, they twist and turn

and rationalize about how it's GOOD to not know right from wrong, it's GOOD to not have values and principles and beliefs.

 

that makes liberals feel special. Which, is a strictly self-serving, emotionally expedient knee jerk reaction to a lack of

adolescent development of those beliefs and principles and values.

 

IOW's, imho, liberals believe in nothing, and they adhere to counter UNbelieving. so, they don't believe in gay marriage for the most part, but they believe in defending it, because they don't believe in heterosexual marriage either.

 

The "close-minded" slur is akin to the "racist" slur - it is a slam on those who don't agree with your opposite-land, upside down and inside out warping of reality. On the abortion issue, I see three lives - the father and mother and unborn/born child.

 

Liberals see one life = the mother who wants to coldly and selfishly murder her child who has a vote that liberal politicians pander to to get.

 

On another note, does anybody know some liberals who wave the flag and are strongly in love with their country?

I don't.

 

Liberals don't believe in the flag, they don't believe in our country, because they do not believe in anything. Their judgement

solely rests on their elitism as the only thing they will admit to believing in. So, they snipe and fault find and lie and character assassinate, and rail against the second amendment and hunting and our military and ......everything.

[VaporTrail]

They have NO values, NO principles and zero beliefs on any issues, except for the LACK of belief and the LACK

 

of principles and the LACK of values.

 

You say "open-mindedness" I say "empty lost vessel". That leads me to believe, that liberals compensate for being "empty and lost" by becoming extremely arrogant and elitist in

 

This exemplifies his point exactly. Because a liberal has differing values than your own, you automatically say that liberals have "no values, no principles, and zero beliefs." This is not the slightest bit true. Just because you disagree with me, I don't assume that you are a "linear thinker" nor that you don't have any values concerning the issues that I care most about. You just have different beliefs. It doesn't put you above libs. It doesn't put me above you. We just think differently.

 

NOT being beholden to their own developed beliefs, values, and principles. nada. liberals got nothin. And, they twist and turn

and rationalize about how it's GOOD to not know right from wrong, it's GOOD to not have values and principles and beliefs.

 

that makes liberals feel special. Which, is a strictly self-serving, emotionally expedient knee jerk reaction to a lack of

adolescent development of those beliefs and principles and values.

 

Who said that? It's good to know right from wrong, but my right isn't the same as your right. What you value is not what I value. Do libs feel special and above conservatives? Sometimes. But conservatives may feel exactly the same, such as you do now. Liberals are not strictly self-serving, I'd say conservatives are more so. Tax cuts for the rich while we bankrupt the middle class? Who's self-serving there? You can't blanket an entire group the way you do.

 

The "close-minded" slur is akin to the "racist" slur - it is a slam on those who don't agree with your opposite-land, upside down and inside out warping of reality.

 

Then what would you call your "linear thinking?" It's the same thing. It's a slam on those who don't agree with your opposite-land, upside down and inside out warping of reality.

 

We live in the same reality, we just hold our values at degrees that are different than yours.

 

On the abortion issue, I see three lives - the father and mother and unborn/born child.

 

That's fine, and I understand that.

 

Liberals see one life = the mother who wants to coldly and selfishly murder her child who has a vote that liberal politicians pander to to get.

 

We're not only looking at one life. We're looking at the greater good. If a woman gets pregnant at a young age, and can't support herself, let alone another mouth. Why would I want to force someone to go through that? As punishment for not being smart enough to use protection? I don't buy it. I SHOULD have been an abortion. My mother had me when she was 20, but didn't get an abortion because she's Catholic. For that, I'm very thankful, but my life was very, extremely difficult because she wasn't prepared for a family. If I'm ever in that position, I'd go with the abortion because I want my child to not have to worry about going to a shitty school district, I want my child to not have to use bullshit private loans to pay for school (like I am). Our country is set up so that it is extremely hard for poor people to ever come out of poverty. Why would I want my child to go through what I did?

 

Is it selfish? Yes. Would it be the better choice? Yes. Unwanted kids are usually a boon on society, and I'd argue that most of em don't make it to college (don't have any numbers for that, but I'm just basing it on people I grew up with). I'm one of two kids I knew in this apartment complex that had hundreds of kids to go to college. Why would I want to do this to a child?

 

On another note, does anybody know some liberals who wave the flag and are strongly in love with their country?

I don't.

 

Just because you don't blindly support your country doesn't mean you don't love it. I love this country dearly, but I absolutely hate the way some things are handled. I've got an American flag hanging outside my house, thank you very much, I'm very thankful that I can live the life I live. Criticism of how things are handled on a national level does not equate to being un-American.

 

Liberals don't believe in the flag, they don't believe in our country, because they do not believe in anything. Their judgement

solely rests on their elitism as the only thing they will admit to believing in.

 

And conservatives are still stuck in the Cold War, thinking that any type of socialization is evil and will result in our downfall.

 

So, they snipe and fault find and lie and character assassinate, and rail against the second amendment and hunting and our military and ......everything.

 

Sniping, finding fault, lying, and character assassination is not a strictly liberal thing. It's not even a strictly conservative thing. It's a thing that low-life pieces of shit do. Breitbart wasn't a lib, was he? What about Beck? What about Rush? Those three are absolutely guilty of character assassination. Get off your high horse and realize that it's both sides that are doing this.

 

Also, not wanting our troops in Iraq/Afghanistan doesn't make someone un-American. It just means they don't believe in the reasons we're there.

 

Anyways, your post that I just responded to reinforces Haidt's theory.

[calfoxwc]

Well, no it doesn't.

 

Your twisting the context of what I said would, but your "reinterpretation" is not valid.

 

And, what I have been saying is -trend - liberals TEND to etc.

 

"all libs" and "all conservatives" is invalid, given that we are all different to some degree.

 

But, we disagree. I don't mind you disagreeing with me. I just say that I have more reasons

 

to feel the way I do than you do.

 

On the abortion issue, you rationalize for the "greater good".

 

Without any analogies for comparison purposes, let me just say, that the "greater good" can

 

easily be as much a vice as it can be a virture.

 

No, let's say a staunch adherence to the Supreme Court decision that we are guaranteed the right to bear arms.

 

But you can rationalize away that right by stating that if no guns existed, no one would ever get shot.

 

But then, only criminals, in reality, would have guns, outside of the military and police depts.

 

But then, unarmed Americans would be easy prey, and that has been proven historically, as crime goes up

 

when guns are taken away from law abiding citizens.

 

But, then, some innocent people, like kids, get killed with guns.

but then, some families lives are saved with guns.

 

on and on and on it goes. That's why I have a dim view of rationalization to support an idealogical stance.

 

I prefer historical evidence, and legal precedent, both of which fall on the side of the right to bear arms.

 

I prefer "life" as in, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those three go by the wayside for

 

unborn and just born children with abortion.

 

So, it really is complicated, and reaching for humanist rationalization is linear. Despite many factors to be considered,

 

one or two simplistic humanist rationalizations all too often make a liberals' case.

 

And that, isn't not "close minded" when a conservative doesn't accept the lib's stance.

 

rejecting the linear emotionally based rationalization is just more valid to a comprehensive thinker.

[VaporTrail]

Without any analogies for comparison purposes, let me just say, that the "greater good" can

 

easily be as much a vice as it can be a virture.

 

I'd agree with you. Abortion rights for parents take away something that has the potential to be a human life. But weighing the two options. I always come to the same conclusion.

 

So, it really is complicated, and reaching for humanist rationalization is linear. Despite many factors to be considered,

 

one or two simplistic humanist rationalizations all too often make a liberals' case.

 

And that, isn't not "close minded" when a conservative doesn't accept the lib's stance.

 

rejecting the linear emotionally based rationalization is just more valid to a comprehensive thinker.

 

Okay, really, enough with the linear thinking line, already. It's getting old, and there is nothing more comprehensive about your moral tendencies over mine. Nor are mine more comprehensive than yours. We both take all the same traits and issues into account, but weigh them differently.

[calfoxwc]

I know, Vapor, "enough with".

 

Thank you for engaging the point about abortion. You said :

 

"I'd agree with you. Abortion rights for parents take away something that has the potential to be a human life. But weighing the two options. I always come to the same conclusion."

 

So, you used societies' self interest as the factor to decide how you think/feel about abortion.

You really think that is a valid factor in important decisions, Vapor?

 

You see, PRINCIPLE, the PRINCIPLE of the value of human life, rules with conservatives. It never warps, never changes,

never rationalizes. From the nazi extermination of Jews, to ancient tribes who sacrificed virgins to their "sun god", to

the starvation of millions in the Ukraine by Stalin taking all food from them to support the Soviet Union (the Ukraine was their "bread-basket").. etc etc throughout history...

 

for "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".

 

That is a fool's game, Vapor. Societies can't win. Liberals fall on the wrong side of issues all too often because of it.

 

You said:

 

"and there is nothing more comprehensive about your moral tendencies over mine. Nor are mine more comprehensive than yours. We both take all the same traits and issues into account, but weigh them differently."

Look, my moral judgements are based on non changing principles and beliefs written down in the Bible, and our Constitution/Bill of Rights/Federalist Papers, and the rule of law, etc.

 

Your moral judgements let you simply determine your view of what's best for society, what's more convenient to society,

trumping all principle and concrete values.

 

That is a very dangerous game. You don't really want to go with that, Vapor. It's a double-edged sword, it can cut both ways,

for the "convenience" of society, as well as for the destruction of a society.

 

You can't be serious to equate the two decision making viewpoints simply because you feel better.

 

Society cannot build it's house on the weak and shifting sands of rationalizing self-interest.

 

"1994" ... by George Orwell........ "Anthem" by Ayn Rand.... etc.

 

"For the greater good" ? Here's a quote for you; I just made it up, seriously.

 

It's quite possible it's been said before, but here goes:

 

"Greed and extreme self-interest are the King and Queen of the rationalizing liberals' kingdom."

conservatives don't go the way of self interest and greed, generally speaking. That isn't close minded - it's

 

how they see the world.

 

The factors upon which decisions are finally based, are several for conservatives, and concrete.

 

The factor(s) used by liberals, tend to be emotional decisions based on what's convenient and good for society at the time...

 

When conservatives use a map to get somewhere, they follow the MAP.

 

When liberals use a map to get somewhere, they simply change the map so things fit their emotions.

 

When the conservative ship comes to shore at night, they follow the stars, and their GPS and the lighthouse light,

etc.

 

When the liberal ship comes to shore at night, they shine their spotlight on the nearest trees so they can quickly land because their bathroom is out of order, and the ship hits the rocks or sandbar, defeating their purpose.

 

And, that, in the final analysis on my part, means:

 

That liberals and society get nowhere they need to go, and individual liberty dies along the way, and they all are

sorry in the end.

 

Misery may love company, but we conservatives would rather keep the ship in shape.

 

So, there ya go.

 

Now my shoulder is aching, and it's all your fault. @@

[Kosar_For_President]

Labeling is bullshit. What is "conservative" about invading a country and what is so "liberal" about keeping them there? It's childish name games.

[VaporTrail]

ITT: Cal fails to realize that no one is actually wrong time after time, and that people just hold things in different regard. All the while reinforcing Haidt's theory.

 

So, you used societies' self interest as the factor to decide how you think/feel about abortion.

You really think that is a valid factor in important decisions, Vapor?

 

Yes, social justice is a big point for most people with a liberal viewpoint.

 

ou see, PRINCIPLE, the PRINCIPLE of the value of human life, rules with conservatives. It never warps, never changes,

never rationalizes. From the nazi extermination of Jews, to ancient tribes who sacrificed virgins to their "sun god", to

the starvation of millions in the Ukraine by Stalin taking all food from them to support the Soviet Union (the Ukraine was their "bread-basket").. etc etc throughout history...

 

But when there's a disagreement on what actually constitutes human life, your principle on abortion is irrelevant to those that don't believe it was a human life. Are you sure you want to compare me to Stalin and Hitler for being pro-Choice? Really? Get a grasp on history, please. Thanks.

 

or "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".

 

Exactly. That's why everything is relative. Nothing is set in stone.

 

That is a fool's game, Vapor. Societies can't win. Liberals fall on the wrong side of issues all too often because of it.

 

You can call it a fool's game if you like, it isn't. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes my point of view different. You think you're absolutely right. You do. This is why you're considered more closed-minded than me.

 

 

.... Sorry about your shoulder But thanks for the reply.

[smalls1129]

Despite all the generalities on both sides of the argument, and Vapor I completely disagree with you that there is no wrong answer. There most definitely is (but I believe that to be more of a religious argument).

 

Basically you guys are arguing the difference between a Republic and a Democracy. In a Republic there are set rules that can only be changed by a complex method. A Democracy on the other hand is an ever changing set of rules because it is implicit on majority rule.

[VaporTrail]

smalls, name one thing that is absolutely wrong.

[smalls1129]

smalls, name one thing that truly is absolutely wrong.

 

 

Bestiality, Adultery, Pedophilia, there's nothing natural or beneficial to the human race in any of them. I could and am willing to list others but admittedly the line becomes harder to pin point. I will maintain to this day that jealousy and coveting are absolutely wrong; but they are also transient as they are emotive in nature and you can take the wrong (read negative in this instance) and use it for positive motivation. Murder leads to self defense and also revenge principles that I know personally would override my Principle. Example, I walk in immediately after you fatally harm my family and even know you are of no immediate threat to me, I cannot say that my knowing murder is absolutely wrong is going to stop me.

[VaporTrail]

Adultery goes to primal instincts. Live to spread your seed. One mate is rarer in nature than multiple mates. What about polygamy? Pedophilia is relative to a point. What would you say about someone having an affair with a 17 year old? 15 is the legal age of consent in Sweden. Are people that go after 15 year olds there wrong? Beastiality is a little harder to argue, but hell, apparently both beings involved want to do it.

 

These are all societal norms, not absolute norms. The two closest things that I can think of are rape and genocide, but even then, I can think of times when society has deemed them as morally right. Rape is sometimes used as punishment by Islamic extremists. Genocide is advocated and acts of it are portrayed in the Bible. If we want to get really hypothetical, imagine another type of being becomes sentient, and we fight over resources with them. Would it be wrong to kill them all, even if they would do the same to us?

 

I realize that these are all extreme examples, but I don't think that you can prove any single moral theory is absolute. It's all based on the makeup of the society.

[smalls1129]

Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.

 

But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.

 

Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.

 

Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.

[calfoxwc]

But when there's a disagreement on what actually constitutes human life, your principle on abortion is irrelevant to those that don't believe it was a human life. Are you sure you want to compare me to Stalin and Hitler for being pro-Choice? Really? Get a grasp on history, please. Thanks.

********************************

I didn't compare you to Hitler or Stalin, knucklehead. I simply stated that "for the greater good" can easily become a dangerous vice, instead of a virtue.

You were doing a fine job, until you went and pulled a liberal Heckism on me - playing the "victim" when I was really

on a roll. If I speak of the cruelty of "Christain zealots" during the Crusades, I wouldn't be comparing me to them.

Don't play the victim, Vapor - it's a self-defeating psychological defense mechanism.

 

Admit it, you laughed at my conservative ship vs liberal ship. I mean, come on. Admit it...

***********************************************

 

or "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".

 

Exactly. That's why everything is relative. Nothing is set in stone.

************************************************

I never spoke of "written in stone". I spoke of linear vs comprehensive analysis of issues, and I spoke of TENDENSIES on both sides,

imho.

Principles do not reverse themselves out of greed, political expediency, or hatred.

 

Your "relativism" does. Nothing is set in stone? Everything is relative? Genocide? Child sexual abuse? Do I need to repost

the testimony of the nurse who held an infant that survived an abortion attempt so the child was PUT INTO A CLOSET and

allowed to die of neglect? That's okay sometimes, because "all things are relative?"

yes, you know better.

*************************************************

That is a fool's game, Vapor. Societies can't win. Liberals fall on the wrong side of issues all too often because of it.

 

You can call it a fool's game if you like, it isn't. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes my point of view different. You think you're absolutely right. You do. This is why you're considered more closed-minded than me.

 

*************************************************

No, it's a fool's game because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I never said I was absolutely nothin. I simply am trying to explain

how i see the differences between how you and other libs see things, and how I and other conservatives see them.

That, and why I don't just toss my beliefs out the window because you say stuff. And, vica versa.

I understand your humanistic bent on philosophy, but you won't understand mine. We disagree, but I get where you are coming from, and I disagree.

*****************

sorry about your shoulder But thanks for the reply.

*****************

THANKS ! My wonderful cute Wifie is having fun doing my therapy on my arm for me. @@

I heal fast, and my friends and brother and sister in law are amazed that the bigger scar on my shoulder (3")

has healed very well. Had surgery on the 16th, and the tape on the incisions was taken off the 29th. Lookin good,

except my powerful @@ left shoulder is wimpy now. "sigh"

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

--------------------

"Humanistic government bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."

 

***FIXED***

*****************

"And the soft tyranny of anti_God humanist statists turns to hard tyranny throughout history" Cal

 

(I'm currently reading Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" so...)

[calfoxwc]

Thanks for joining in, Smalls !

 

I don't see how slavery can be any kind of moral equivalency question.

 

but it has been in the past.

 

"for the greater good" and "moral equivalency" etc...

 

has lent itself to extreme outrageous persecution of peoples in history.

 

The nazis extermination of the Jews.... the starving of millions of people in the Ukraine.

 

Both those hideous events in history were justified for the "greater good".

 

These examples are just an extension of simplistic humanistic philophies by certain societies.

 

All I was saying, Vapor, is that human viewpoint run amuck with no basis on no established and

 

accepted principle has happened in the past, and the inhuman results occured.

 

Those principles are NOT law, but law is based, often, ON them.

 

Society has a right to protect itself, but society must also protect the -established- rights of INDIVIDUALS

 

making up that society. Lacking that, society falls into disarray, and violence, and oppression.

 

Smalls is right, Vapor, be careful about relying on the "moral relativism" justification for change.

[VaporTrail]

Well you need to decide whether we're having a nature law argument or a societal law. The theory goes that when we enter a social compact (for our own safety, collection of good and materials) that we forgo what once may have been 'right'under natural law. I am not very brushed up on this argument so that description might not be complete.

 

But Adultery, IMO, isn't a good example of the primal instinct to spread our seed, but more of the primal instinct of jealousy and coveting. And too lazy to look it up, but I thought pedophilia was before teenage years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia Wiki just calls it child sexual abuse, just for clarification the example I used in the previous post I was referring to prepubescent.

 

Your example of what societies has deemed right only goes to my point. Just because the government laid out (for arguments sake) a beautiful lady at my feet and said 'despite her objections she is yours' doesn't mean it is right for me to take her. Also, technically in bestiality we have no idea if the animal is objecting or not.

 

Vapor, just be careful with moral relativism. Under this argument you can say the only thing that Hitler did wrong, was loose the war.

 

Well if we assume it's societal law, then that puts a prerequisite on that law; meaning it's not absolute. So I suppose I am arguing under the concept of natural law. But even so, the argument for absolute societal laws is still kind of sketchy, imo.

 

I disagree with you about adultery. Multiple partners is the norm in many animals, and even in many societies. You didn't answer how you felt about polygamy/bigamy. It happens in Utah. It happens in much of the Islamic world. Hell, each man is promised 40 virgins in Paradise in Islam.

 

Pedophilia. I don't know. Everything I know about it, I learned from Chris Hansen in To Catch a Predator, lol, that show needs to come back. But they'd pretend to be 14 or 15 year old girls or boys sometimes. Then the people that would come would get labeled as pedophiles. Maybe it's not the most precise definition, but idk.

 

I don't see how your government-issued wife example works, though. Who decides what is right or wrong. In some cultures of the world (Islamic, Indian), people may believe that it's truly right. Obviously, because of your upbringing in a Western country, you look upon prearranged marriages and Sharia law as barbaric. I'd agree that they are barbaric, but that doesn't make us the paramount authority on morality.

 

And yes, concerning Hitler, moral relativism puts me on very shaky ground. Was Hitler absolutely evil? I'd still say no. I think he's wrong, but I'd argue that he was strongly misguided. He believed he was doing right. He convinced millions he was doing right. Millions of people believed that exterminating an entire group of people would result in a better world. Though the time and scale that he did it were unprecedented, I'd still argue that what he did was only wrong on a relative moral scale. Genocides have happened thousands of times since the time of written history. Look at the praises the Jews got from Yahweh for committing genocides during their expansion. Look at the expansion of Islam. Looking back now, what they did is barbaric, but at the time, it was necessary to carve out a foothold in the world, and lead to the largest cultural movement (Abrahamic religions) that the world has ever seen. Was establishing this culture wrong? I'd say that if you look back today, the answer is yes. But if you're around then, the answer is no. This dynamic demonstrates that there is no absolute moral law. Are there laws that our society tends to universally gravitate to? Perhaps, but if it takes 4000 years to come to a unanimous agreement (which there still really isn't) then it isn't absolute.

[VaporTrail]

I didn't compare you to Hitler or Stalin, knucklehead. I simply stated that "for the greater good" can easily become a dangerous vice, instead of a virtue.

You were doing a fine job, until you went and pulled a liberal Heckism on me - playing the "victim" when I was really

on a roll. If I speak of the cruelty of "Christain zealots" during the Crusades, I wouldn't be comparing me to them.

Don't play the victim, Vapor - it's a self-defeating psychological defense mechanism.

 

Okay, let's see, if you want to claim that you aren't comparing me to Hitler and Stalin, don't use them as explicit examples of what will happen if people think the way I think. Get it?

 

From the nazi extermination of Jews, to ancient tribes who sacrificed virgins to their "sun god", to

the starvation of millions in the Ukraine by Stalin taking all food from them to support the Soviet Union (the Ukraine was their "bread-basket").. etc etc throughout history... for "greater good". It all depends on WHO gets to decide WHAT is for the "greater good".

 

You cherry-picked the very worst examples of people acting for the "greater good." I don't advocate any kind of extremism, imo, I'm just looking for a happy medium. Working for the greater good, and not abusing it, can lead to good things. Abuse of capitalism really screws people over too, do I even have to mention companies deemed too big to fail? Letting people work as individuals that screw each other over to get to the top, and assuming that they'll help out others is very naive. We're not the white knights of the world; fighting for individual rights (capitalism vs. communism) has resulted in some horrible human rights abuses. The situations that we created when expanding our influence over South America are morally reprehensible. I feel that what Hitler and Stalin did was ethically disgusting. I feel that many of the things the US has done have been ethically disgusting as well. I don't want some socialist utopia, nor do I want fascist nor capitalist utopia. I don't think any can exist, so please, the next time you consider comparing me to Hitler or Stalin, reconsider. Thanks.

 

No, it's a fool's game because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I never said I was absolutely nothin. I simply am trying to explain

how i see the differences between how you and other libs see things, and how I and other conservatives see them.

That, and why I don't just toss my beliefs out the window because you say stuff. And, vica versa.

I understand your humanistic bent on philosophy, but you won't understand mine. We disagree, but I get where you are coming from, and I disagree.

 

I do understand yours. Your beliefs are based on the Holy Bible. You've said it yourself in other topics. It's the one true word. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from. I can understand where you're coming from. Because Jesus/Moses/YHWH/Isaiah/etc said these things, you must uphold them. We both claim to understand where the other is coming from, and we both claim that the other doesn't understand us. This is where we sit. But because you hold the Bible as the true authority on morality, you close your mind to things that would contradict the inspired word of God. I, as far as I can tell, have no such authority. I have nothing to restrict or mold my beliefs except my knowledge of history, and interpretation of the events that unfold around me. If you believe me to be wrong, please provide an example of something that restricts my moral views to the degree the Bible does for you.

 

Your "relativism" does. Nothing is set in stone? Everything is relative? Genocide? Child sexual abuse? Do I need to repost

the testimony of the nurse who held an infant that survived an abortion attempt so the child was PUT INTO A CLOSET and

allowed to die of neglect? That's okay sometimes, because "all things are relative?"

yes, you know better.

 

Read your Bible. There are places where it advocates all sorts of shit we would find appalling. The point is, that genocides were once okay, and they were okay according to your god, YHWH. I think it's in Leviticus, but you can find a verse where it advocates dashing the heads of your enemies' babies against a rock. You want to talk about child abuse? Read up on Lot and his daughters. You can come out and say, oh, well Jesus didn't actually say any of these things, but before that, this WAS the word of God. This was the moral paramount. The amount of moral contradictions in the Bible itself support my claim that morality is not absolute.

 

/edit

 

And I may have laughed when I read your boat analogy. But I certainly wasn't laughing with you I mean, did you really just quote yourself? One of my speakers at my high school graduation did that. Worst speech ever.

[smalls1129]

Kinda of quickie here so forgive me. The wife spread eagle argument wasn't necessarily applying to arranged marriages, merely I am saying that if the partner is not willing then it is wrong no matter who says otherwise. The 'it takes two to tango' scenario, if one is not tangoing and is in fact pleading for the band to stop I do not believe the dance to be immoral (admit it that is kind of a funny analogy).

 

On adultery/polygamy argument I must have missed the boat the first time so let me take another angle that concerns both. In a world of 6 billion people the concerns over this argument are definitely diminished, so image that there are only 428 people left on earth (I pulled that number from a memory of 2012 when they were talking about how much different DNA was needed to repopulate the human race. So we pair off those 428 for the purpose of re-population. Take either scenario, a man wooing/domineering/conning 10 women to become his wives and only have relations with him. Or the man who has his mate, decides it's not enough and finds 9 more willing to have fun on the side. In both cases imagine that all 10 women have his children. In the polygamy situation at least it is known and plans can be changed to accommodate. Now, in the adulteress case, the 9 other children were born without the knowledge of the rest. This could easily result in incest situation where the gene pool is dumbed down possibly ending any chance of re-population. Which by the way, has been a problem in the animal community where a 'stud' has nailed too many partners. I know for a fact the certain breed lineage in dogs has been all but ruined due to inbreeding.

[VaporTrail]

Interesting point, but are you suggesting an absolute moral framework based solely on furthering mankind's progress toward... something? An enlightened era perhaps? But what is this end that you're aiming for? When you defined examples for absolute moral wrongs, you said that none of it was natural or beneficial to humankind. What defines something as beneficial to humankind?

[smalls1129]

Indeed I do believe that moral frameworks are essentially designed to maximize human life. Now I cannot pretend to know what the ends are to these means as I am not God/ nor am I enlightened enough to catch anything more than the occasional fleeting glimpse of how this end may look. This is why at the beginning I said that you and I were having more of a religious argument rather than a political one. And don't forget that I am not going on the religious definition/preconception of God. I have explained in detail before that I try to set my prism through the philosophical definition of God.

[VaporTrail]

Okay, so let's take it down a level. Here, the term "absolute" no longer means absolute. We're talking absolute in... political terms I guess. Let me try to define what I mean. An absolute wrong, in this sense would be something such as rape. If someone running for office commits rape, it's career suicide. It's something that no one on any point of the political spectrum should be okay with. So maybe, something, that most everyone would agree unanimously on could be considered an absolute moral truth.

 

Aside from rape, what else is there? Pedophilia, perhaps, but if both parties are willing and the younger person is at least pubescent, I'd argue that some would find it okay. You mentioned sexual acts of perversion that added nothing to the human agenda as being absolute moral wrongs. Well where does the line get drawn at what sex acts are absolutely morally wrong? Paying for sex is one. Adultery would be another (thanks Wild Bill). What about oral sex? Premarital sex? Anal sex? Gay sex?

 

I think that we'll find, even now, that the term "absolute" is not static. I would bet if some politicians admitted they were gay, they'd lose their positions and support pretty quickly. I bet that will not be true in 20 years. But hey, if Barney Frank is openly gay, and a member of Congress, I guess that eliminates gay sex (that is, putting a penis in another man's ass) from the list of absolute moral wrongs.

[calfoxwc]

Okay, let's see, if you want to claim that you aren't comparing me to Hitler and Stalin, don't use them as explicit examples of what will happen if people think the way I think. Get it? Vapor]

****************************************

el wrongo, bongo.

 

I never said "what WILL happen", I said what CAN happen, and historically HAS happened. It has nothing to do with

saying you would so and so, or comparing you etc.

 

Like I said, don't play the liberal victim game. It isn't about you personally, Vapor. I'm explaining how I see things, and how you

sometimes, and liberals, a lot of the time, see them.

 

And, your comment on the Bible? Your example is cherry picked from the OLD TESTAMENT. The NEW TESTAMENT

supercedes the old.

Or, we would still have to do works out the wazoo and be perfect to be saved, and we are unable to do that, since we

are imperfect.

 

That is the point of Jesus' death on the cross.

 

The Bible is hardly the end all for my moral values. ie, the Bible, imho, never says anything anywhere about

interracial marriage. But I know that interracial marriage is perfectly fine by me, and i see no reason to think otherwise.

 

Others, conservatives and libs perhaps, think that the possible social ostricization is a reason for being against that,

but so would be being a Browns fan in Pittsburg be a problem with that. GGG

 

My life's experiences over eh... some...decades more than you.. ahem.... give me more reason to believe what I believe,

that you, in that dept. Doesn't mean I'm right, just means my life's experiences are many, as a lot of older folks do, not that I'm

that much of an older folk but ... eh

 

you know what I mean.

 

There are some libs screaming in the past on this board about the 2nd ammendment does not mean private citizens can bear arms.

blah blah blah.

then the Supreme Court ruled in exactly what we told them. They disappeared.

I understand subjective judgement, and I understand core principles of our freedom's existence.

Those principles are not subjective.

 

The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... is that really open to interpretation when you consider the life

of the unborn? Or just born?

 

We agree to disagree. But doesn't help to say I compared you, said what you will do etc. That is incorrect, for whatever reasons

prompt you to staunchly emphasize what isn't even the legit statements I've made at the time.

 

But thanks for the words about my shoulder. It'll be about 3-4 months before I can start using my own left arm again.

 

crap.

[VaporTrail]

Then why do you have such a problem with homosexuality? Jesus said NOTHING about queers being wrong. The NT says women should keep quiet and be pregnant. Do you believe that, too? Everyone cherry picks from the Bible. The difference is, you hold its contents to be absolute truths, I don't.

 

There are many atheists that have lived as long as you or longer and kept their religious convictions.

[calfoxwc]

Oh, I'm sure. But none of them would have my experiences in life. And, they are obviously linear thinkers,

with a restricted development in their childhood development.... @@

 

anyways... ggg

 

God created Adam. Then, seeing that Adam was lonely and incomplete in his life....

 

he created Eve.

 

Man...Woman.

 

Now, you show me where God created Adam, then created another Adam to be his eh....

 

better half... and I'll admit I'm wrong.

 

"Adam and Eve, sitting in a tree, making wrongie of you, and rightee of me."

[VaporTrail]

Adam and Eve is a fairy tale.

[calfoxwc]

But however we were created, we became more than one or two, via two different

 

sexes mating.

 

It's the natural order of things. It's biology. It's in the Bible. There would be no mammals if not for

 

MALE and FEMALE... well, except for a very few species like kangaroos, etc.

 

But, with humans, it is MALE-FEMALE.

 

To pervert the natural order of humanity's lives... is to say that the human

 

species continues via same sex births. That is biologically impossible.

 

so, if something is un-natural, un-scriptural, not historical in terms of our existence method,

 

An UNbiological abberation hardly deserves "normal" status, no matter how you shape the cookie.

 

It's still a cookie.

[VaporTrail]

The difference between humans and most other animals is that we don't do things purely for the proliferation of our species. Humans and dolphins and there's one other species (I think) enjoy having sex for pleasure. Is the act of recreational sex unnatural? Why does it matter if it's with the same sex or not?

[VaporTrail]

Crack jokes all you like, I don't find gay bashing particularly funny. I have friends whose families have more or less disowned them because of who they're attracted to. I'm an advocate of gay rights. If that makes me some kind of fag, in your eyes, so be it you f'cking prick.