Milestone Day for ARBR Arrives!

"Bob the Cow" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

How about the taking of innocent human life which is what abortion does.

Liberals must eliminate this distinction. "Innocent", if it is to have a
meaning, must imply the existence of "good" and of "evil". The concepts
of "good" and "evil" come uncomfortably close to being religious
constructs, and religion must at all costs be eliminated. As to morality,
if someone can do something, then that thing is OK.

So, there is no "guilt" and there is no "innocence" and there is no moral
difference between capital punishment and abortion.

Got that?

I've got it to perfection Bob, but I do not think the liberal left wing
wacko nuts (all one word) will ever get it. I am not into religion at all.
In fact, I am a thorough going atheist. But I do not want to abandon the
morality of the traditional religions. They save us from ourselves.

Jeff Grippe is a Jew and he should embrace his Judaism for it's moral
teaching just as I embrace my Catholicism for it's moral teaching. Any kind
of relativistic thinking about morals (good and evil) scares the hell out of
me. The past century was replete with various theories of human behavior and
morality and it has been nothing but a horror show. We do not ever want to
repeat the 20th century. That is why I believe liberals are unfit to ever
rule again.

I for one am weighed down with all kinds of guilt. I do not see how a
thinking, feeling human being can be otherwise. There is surely much evil in
the world. It is all I can do to avoid becoming permanently depressed by the
human condition.

I have always liked Jews for their gravitas and their serious approach to
life's conundrums. Jeff continues to disappoint me mightily by his light
weight liberal ideology. A Jew that is not firmly anchored in his religion,
at least with respect to it's moral teachings, is a freak of nature to me.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
Jeff Grippe is a Jew and he should embrace his Judaism for it's moral
teaching just as I embrace my Catholicism for it's moral teaching. ...
A Jew that is not firmly anchored in his religion,
at least with respect to it's moral teachings, is a freak of nature to me.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"It's" is a contraction of "it is." "Its" is the word you're looking
for, Mr. genius librarian. For a primer, see this link:
www.stormloader.com/garyes/its/#top (And no, Mr. Paranoid Dolan, the
link will not download a virus to your computer.)

--ROTB

Sorry about the top posting. I find it unpleasant to read messages where
there is a lot of old text sprinkled with new text in the middle.

So the criteria is not just "taking of life" but "taking of innocent life".
Lets explo

1. There have been innocent people executed in error.
2. There are innocent people killed during wars.

If you are against the taking of innocent life then you must be against war
completely and against capital punishment until there is a way to make sure
that innocent people are never accidentally executed. Since that is not
possible, you must then be against capital punishment as well.

Regarding sexual behavior, what is the ethical principle which you are
appealing to in your views? What is it that makes certain practices
"unethical"? I have no problem with someone having this view if they have
thought it out and can express it as the result of an ethical principle. For
religious people the rule would be "I believe that it is commanded by God".
While I don't agree I can certainly see that for someone who believes, it is
a very important rule. You claim to not believe in God or God's rules. So,
what is the principle that you are applying to arrive at your views on
sexuality?

Morality is not about having "deep roots in history". It is (from
dictionary.com)

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality;
Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Some of the key words here a
1. "standards of right or good conduct": I read this as principles. Rules
are derived from principles.
2. "system of ideas of right and wrong conduct": Again this refers to
principles. It doesn't say "ideas of right and wrong conduct" but rather
"SYSTEM of ideas of right and wrong conduct". That extra word makes a big
difference.

Rather than read me your list of rules you should spend some time thinking
about the principles from which those rules generate. I agree that it is
more difficult to find a moral compass without religion but it can be done.
It is done with principles.

Some (but not all) of mine:
Affirm the worth, dignity, and uniqueness of every human being.
Reason, compassion, and responsibility are central.
Deed is more important than creed
Human life is most meaningful when lived ethically.

Despite your assertions to the contrary Ed, I believe that your values are
relatively unexamined (by you). You have rules but you don't understand the
principles from which those rules come. This is one of the reasons that we
are often talking about two different things. I talk about principles and
you talk about rules. They are different.


"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Grippe" jeff@door7 wrote in message
...
I quoted the whole thing because that seems to be important to you.

Top posting is all wrong. Quoting the whole thing is not important to me,
but posting the correct way is. That means bottom posting. Follow my
example if you would be correct.

As I said, your moral compass is poorly calibrated. You don't actually
have a system of principles to guide you in ethical behavior.

You say things like "There are certain human behaviors which ought to be
hidden away..." but we know nothing of what priciples determine which
behaviors you are talking about. You give examples and tell us that the
list is long but there is no clear way to understand what makes the list
and what doesn't. Don't even bother with terms like liberal and
conservative. They are far to broad in scope to actually be called "a
system of principles".

How about the taking of innocent human life which is what abortion does.
How about aberrant sexual behavior which is what promiscuity and
homosexuality is all about. But who needs a list except someone who has
never received any instruction in the elements of morality. All the
traditional religions (including Judaism) will give you very strong clues
about what principals to live by.

You ignore class issues and simply rely on "this is how things have
always been so it is perfectly ok if they remain that way". That may in
fact be a principle but I would hardly call it ethical.

You need to spend some time thinking about what your principles are and
then work from there and take stands on issues based on your principles.
You should also recognize the situations in which there might be some
ambiguity although I realize this is very difficult for you.

Traditional morality (mostly based on religion) solved all these problems
thousands of years ago. It is only those who want to do what they want to
do who ignore this traditional morality much to the detriment of the
entire society. If you were more conservative and less liberal, you would
not so easily fall into evil ways of thinking and doing.

I have no problem with the person who takes an anti-choice stand because
they have a principle which says that "human life is sacred" and that
abortion is the taking of human life. I don't happen to agree but I
completely understand the position. If that same person says that "human
life is scared" but then they support capital punishment, or they support
war, then I would say that they don't have a consistant set of moral
values. If it is possible to hold that human life is sacred but that the
intentional taking of human life is not always wrong, then you have no
basis upon which to take an anti-choice stand.

You have got it all backwards, but that is what liberals do all the time.
It is totally consistent to be against the taking of innocent life and to
be for the taking of guilty life. Normally, the guilty life has taken
innocent life. It is precisely because life is regarded as so precious
(sacred) that the guilty must be punished with the ultimate penalty. You
take someone else's life, you forfeit your own life. Elementary, my dear
Watson!

Do you not realize that excellent arguments can be made for killing and
murder. The way you think about abortion is not very far removed from the
way many others think about getting rid of those who they would like to be
rid of. Justifications are far easier than most think. This is where
traditional religion comes in and saves us from our own follies. You
become a thorough going secularist at your peril. Morality is all about
having deep roots in history.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

I think we can find a "secular" definition of innocent which allows the rule
against "taking of innocent human life" to work for liberals. We liberals
will argue (and do argue) about what is "human life" so the innocent part
doesn't even come in to play.

The concepts of "good" and "evil" are (as all concepts are) man made
concepts. People have always made up new concepts and sometimes chosen to
live by them.

As to what is Ok and what isn't, that is at some level a personal decision
and at other levels a societal decision.

"Bob the Cow" wrote in message
...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

How about the taking of innocent human life which is what abortion does.

Liberals must eliminate this distinction. "Innocent", if it is to have a
meaning, must imply the existence of "good" and of "evil". The concepts
of "good" and "evil" come uncomfortably close to being religious
constructs, and religion must at all costs be eliminated. As to morality,
if someone can do something, then that thing is OK.

So, there is no "guilt" and there is no "innocence" and there is no moral
difference between capital punishment and abortion.

Got that?

I think we can find a "secular" definition of innocent which
allows the rule against "taking of innocent human life" to
work for liberals. We liberals will argue (and do argue)
about what is "human life" so the innocent part doesn't
even come in to play.

Some folks consider me a liberal. Others seem to think I'm a
conservative. Here's my take on it (as though that actually
matters to anyone but me).

I personally believe abortion is wrong so I won't pay for an
abortion nor will I assist someone in seeking an abortion. I
also believe that it would be wrong for me to enforce my personal
convictions about abortion upon someone else. Therefore, I
refuse to try to outlaw abortion and I will not try to prevent
someone seeking an abortion from doing so in as medically safe a
facility as is available.

As some may already know at the moment I happen to be in
Salvador, Brazil. This morning I was reading "A Tarde", a
popular newspaper in this city. There was a front page article
on abortion... among 10 to 14 year old children. In this city
where abortion is pretty much banned a young girl is hospitalized
on average every 28 hours due to complications arising from
illegal abortion. Many of these children are rape or incest
victims. Many of them die horrible, excruciating deaths due to
the ravages of "back alley" abortions. One poor girl of 14
recently tried to abort by inserting rat poison. She died in the
hospital a day later.

I find the situation in my own country (the USA) horrific.
Millions of babies are killed every year. Whatever you wish to
call it, innocence must surely be a quality which one would
attribute to an unborn child. Sadly, it appears tat the
statistics would not change much if the so-called "Christian"
right had their way. Roughly the same number of abortions would
occur but there would be far more young women dead or mutilated
as well.

Find a viable solution and I'll back whoever comes up with it.
Without any answers other than to send people to prison for
abortion I will oppose any change.

The concepts of "good" and "evil" are (as all concepts are)
man made concepts...

So are the concepts of murder, friendship, love, hatred and war.
The fact that they ware man-made does not make them any less
real.

People have always made up new concepts and sometimes
chosen to live by them.

As to what is Ok and what isn't, that is at some level a
personal decision and at other levels a societal decision.

Agreed. For example, I personally choose not to abort babies. I
also personally choose not to force my personal beliefs on you.
--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

So the criteria is not just "taking of life" but "taking
of innocent life".

Lets explo

1. There have been innocent people executed in error.
2. There are innocent people killed during wars.

If you are against the taking of innocent life then you
must be against war completely...

1. Agreed, sort of. I oppose making war against any nation that
is not attacking or threatening me. That would include Iraq but
not Afghanistan. It would not have included Vietnam, Grenada or
most of the other places the US has invaded during my lifetime.

... and against capital punishment until there is a way
to make sure that innocent people are never accidentally
executed. Since that is not possible, you must then be
against capital punishment as well...

2. This is a tough one for me. As a general rule I'm opposed to
capital punishment for three reasons:

a. I can't be 100% certain who is guilty since witnesses, cops
and prosecutors sometimes lie.

b. It is disproportionately used against the poor and
minorities.

c. Bush thinks it's great fun.

OTOH, there are a few people whose presence on the planet remains
a threat to everyone around them. Prisoners who kill again while
serving life sentences know there is nothing that can be done to
them.

Regarding sexual behavior, what is the ethical principle
which you are appealing to in your views?

If you are speaking to Ed, please be advised that he has no
interest in anyone's sexual behavior. His only purpose in
posting here is to troll.

As for me, I look at it this way. Anything one or more
consenting adults want to do between themselves in the privacy of
their own home or in the presence of other consenting adults is
their business. Anything involving minors or incapacitated
persons should be punishable by surgery. :^)

... For religious people the rule would be "I believe that it
is commanded by God".

I believe in God and I usually try to do what I think He would
want me to do. Absent an audible commission from Him, I don't
believe He wants me to tell you or anyone else what to do. I
figure if He is able to speak to me about what I should do He can
also tell you or Ed what to do. Whether you or Ed decide to obey
Him is your business.

Side note: As a Christian, I believe I'm supposed to tell others
about God. I DON'T believe that I'm supposed to tell others how
to live for God. That's His job.

Second side note: A few of the folks who infest a certain other
newsgroup seem to have a hard time reconciling my statement that
I'm a Christian with the fact that I'm also of Jewish heritage.
Posts like this may draw flames since one of the regulars of said
other forum likes to post here too. C'est la "Net. :^)

Some of the key words here a

1. "standards of right or good conduct": I read this as principles. Rules
are derived from principles.

I disagree. Much of the time rules are derived from personal
advantage. Those in power often create rules to help them obtain
more power and/or wealth at the expense of those who have less
power. Rules, it seems, often have nothing to do with
principles.

Rather than read me your list of rules you should spend
some time thinking about the principles from which
those rules generate. I agree that it is more difficult to
find a moral compass without religion but it can be done.
It is done with principles.

Many principles seem to emanate from religiosity. For example,
the principle of charity is often ingrained in religious thought.
Unfortunately, the *act* of charity isn't as often practiced as
it is spoken of by religious zealots.

Despite your assertions to the contrary Ed, I believe that
your values are relatively unexamined (by you)...

I suspect you're giving Ed more credence than he deserves or
wants. His entire purpose in posting here is to troll. I
seriously doubt he gives a rat's bunda about sexuality, morality
or anything else other than the attention he can get by posting
absurdities.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 03:29:40 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota



As I figured, eddieboy, you are NOT man enough to walk away. All too
predictable.


jim

On 5-Sep-2005, Robert L Bass wrote:

Second side note: A few of the folks who infest a certain other
newsgroup seem to have a hard time reconciling my statement that
I'm a Christian with the fact that I'm also of Jewish heritage.
Posts like this may draw flames since one of the regulars of said
other forum likes to post here too. C'est la "Net. :^)

Johnny ReBike sez, Bass's security alarm buddies need to get carbon fiber
splitter plate bikes like Johnny NoCom [NoCon - Fastest Stock Bike in the
Known Universe], then they be happy.

--
Johnny ReBike
ReBike - Slowest Bike in the Known Universe

"ROTB" wrote in message
oups.com...
Edward Dolan wrote:
Jeff Grippe is a Jew and he should embrace his Judaism for it's moral
teaching just as I embrace my Catholicism for it's moral teaching. ...
A Jew that is not firmly anchored in his religion,
at least with respect to it's moral teachings, is a freak of nature to
me.
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"It's" is a contraction of "it is." "Its" is the word you're looking
for, Mr. genius librarian. For a primer, see this link:
www.stormloader.com/garyes/its/#top (And no, Mr. Paranoid Dolan, the
link will not download a virus to your computer.)

--ROTB

That is a mistake I have been making all of my life. I do not do that with
other possessives but it has always seemed to me that "its" should have the
apostrophe. I do know all the contractions of course, but "its" has just
never looked right to me. However, ROTB is quite right about this and I
should not be making this mistake ever again (let us hope).

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Robert L Bass" wrote in message
...
So the criteria is not just "taking of life" but "taking
of innocent life".

Lets explo

1. There have been innocent people executed in error.
2. There are innocent people killed during wars.

If you are against the taking of innocent life then you
must be against war completely...

1. Agreed, sort of. I oppose making war against any nation that
is not attacking or threatening me. That would include Iraq but
not Afghanistan. It would not have included Vietnam, Grenada or
most of the other places the US has invaded during my lifetime.

All of the above wars were right and just. What we are going to see more and
more of in the future are preemptive wars due to the nature of weapons of
mass destruction. If wars were left up to the likes of Jeff and Robert the
US would soon find itself demoralized and defeated. The era of a Pearl
Harbor is over and done with forever.

... and against capital punishment until there is a way
to make sure that innocent people are never accidentally
executed. Since that is not possible, you must then be
against capital punishment as well...

2. This is a tough one for me. As a general rule I'm opposed to
capital punishment for three reasons:

a. I can't be 100% certain who is guilty since witnesses, cops
and prosecutors sometimes lie.

They do not lie nearly so much as the criminals and their defense lawyers. I
do not mind seeing an innocent man go to his death occasionally if it makes
society safer for the rest of us.

b. It is disproportionately used against the poor and
minorities.

It is disproportionately the poor and the minorities who are committing all
the murders.

c. Bush thinks it's great fun.

Me too! I would like to throw the switch myself if it were allowed.

OTOH, there are a few people whose presence on the planet remains
a threat to everyone around them. Prisoners who kill again while
serving life sentences know there is nothing that can be done to
them.

Regarding sexual behavior, what is the ethical principle
which you are appealing to in your views?

If you are speaking to Ed, please be advised that he has no
interest in anyone's sexual behavior. His only purpose in
posting here is to troll.

I have stated repeatedly to this group that the ONLY purpose of sex is to
make babies and if you are engaged in sex for any other purpose than that,
then you are aberrant and immoral. You are hardly even a human being in my
book if you are using sex as a recreation, whether hetero or homo. What is
so difficult to understand about this?

As for me, I look at it this way. Anything one or more
consenting adults want to do between themselves in the privacy of
their own home or in the presence of other consenting adults is
their business. Anything involving minors or incapacitated
persons should be punishable by surgery. :^)

That consenting adults stuff is a bunch of rubbish. Once you believe crap
like that, then anything is possible.

... For religious people the rule would be "I believe that it
is commanded by God".

I believe in God and I usually try to do what I think He would
want me to do. Absent an audible commission from Him, I don't
believe He wants me to tell you or anyone else what to do. I
figure if He is able to speak to me about what I should do He can
also tell you or Ed what to do. Whether you or Ed decide to obey
Him is your business.

What is right and good for one person is right and good for all persons.
Anyone who thinks he can create his own morality is a fool. Now you know why
we need religion. It is to protect us from fools who think they are smart
enough to create their won morality.
[...]

Despite your assertions to the contrary Ed, I believe that
your values are relatively unexamined (by you)...

I suspect you're giving Ed more credence than he deserves or
wants. His entire purpose in posting here is to troll. I
seriously doubt he gives a rat's bunda about sexuality, morality
or anything else other than the attention he can get by posting
absurdities.

I like to state things in an exaggerated way, but there is an underlying
substance which is anything but an absurdity. You have to know how to read
through the style to get to the substance. It is a shame so many here on
ARBR are constantly tripping over words. But I refuse to temper my style for
the sake of those who do not know how to read.

--
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota