|
| Ads |
|
#392
July 15th 04, 03:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I was misled
(Jonesy) wrote:
I suppose this is supposed to be a "pithy" rejoinder. That WOULD be nice. Keep on worshipping the Shrub Torture Machine. Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now. Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke. Jus' the facts, please. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame 
|
|
#393
July 15th 04, 03:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
(Jonesy) wrote:
By defining acts based on the outcome, the morality of those acts suddenly becomes... Relative. Ding ding ding... there's the error bell again (two for two - you gotta be more careful, Jonesy). Number one - no one (other than you) defined the morality of the actions in the Iraqi prison as based on the outcome. Here's why you're wrong... Say a terrorist sinks a ship. Bad thing, right? It makes a great reef for the fish. Good thing, right? Except in your tortured world, it's still a bad thing. Even the fish know better. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
|
|
#394
July 15th 04, 04:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
Mark Hickey wrote:
(Jonesy) wrote: By defining acts based on the outcome, the morality of those acts suddenly becomes... Relative. Ding ding ding... there's the error bell again (two for two - you gotta be more careful, Jonesy). Number one - no one (other than you) defined the morality of the actions in the Iraqi prison as based on the outcome. Here's why you're wrong... Say a terrorist sinks a ship. Bad thing, right? It makes a great reef for the fish. Good thing, right? Except in your tortured world, it's still a bad thing. Even the fish know better.... Are these Republican fish or Democratic fish? -- Tom Sherman – Quad City Area
|
|
#395
July 15th 04, 04:57 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
Tom Sherman wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote (in reply to Jonesy, not Tom...): Say a terrorist sinks a ship. Bad thing, right? It makes a great reef for the fish. Good thing, right? Except in your tortured world, it's still a bad thing. Even the fish know better.... Are these Republican fish or Democratic fish? Probably Democrat. Republican fish arrange their own housing. ;-) Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
|
|
#396
July 15th 04, 05:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
I just found what has to be the high point of political satire so far
this year. And not to worry - it's very equal opportunity satire - both sides get creamed (hence, I like it). It's got to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen on the net. http://jibjab.com/thisland.html It got me thinking (I know that's hard for Jonesy to believe...). There HAVE to be things we can all agree on if we insist on perpetuating these political threads. The cartoon above is one example. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
|
|
#397
July 15th 04, 07:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
Keep on worshipping the Shrub Torture Machine. Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now. Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke. the current administration isnt going to make it that easy, or theyd have people shouting for impeachment. Jus' the facts, please. which can be stranger than fiction.
|
|
#398
July 15th 04, 02:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
SoCalMike wrote:
Keep on worshipping the Shrub Torture Machine. Oops. I said I was just here to correct errors. There's one now. Unless you can show any connection whatsoever from the prison in Iraq to the office of the President, you're just blowing smoke. the current administration isnt going to make it that easy, or theyd have people shouting for impeachment. Well now THERE'S an air-tight prosecuter's strategy. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, although we have no evidence at all that the accused is guilty, it's just 'cuz he's such an evil genius that he's hidden it all - so we assume you'll convict him without any further input....". ;-) Jus' the facts, please. which can be stranger than fiction. Too true! Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
|
|
#399
July 15th 04, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
Jonsey:
I don't disagree with anything that you are saying. I was simply pointing out that when Kant talks about the categorical imperative, he makes a leap of faith which becomes the central criticism of his philosophy. Most of us, as human beings are always, as you suggested, trying to balance our decicisons between a moral imperative and the most logical action in the long run. Kant comes up with the categorical imperative as a way to create a balance against extreme utilitarianism. The interesting thing is that the most extremely utilitarian system is capitalism and the most extreme capitalists are also the most extreme categorical imperativists. By definition, capitalism is a system where the purpose is to make a profit, and what is the purpose of making a profit? making more profit so that you can make more profit and you never end. So, you need to introduce a moral imperative into capitalism so that we don't end up with overwhelmingly rich and overwhlemingly poor people. Europeans come up with the social contract as a way to prevent a capitalist system to run out of control. Since the system did ran out of control in GB, Marx came up with his theory, which is not the same as the social contract (predates marxism by 100 years). However, most Americans confuse the social contract with marxism. As you said earlier, the most extreme right wing people are those that don't want any kind of a social contract between government and people. they want capitalism to run freely because it is the "best system in the world". Yet, some of these people become the most righteous people when it does not relate to their money, ie: "no gays, no lesbian, aids is god's punishment, axis of evil, the communists are comming, etc etc." However, if you point out that 50 million people don't have health insurance, drugs are way too expensive and one fourth of all kids in the US live in poverty, they all of a sudden look the other way. When you mention raising taxes to build more hospitals, improving the quality of education for the poor, creating a better health care system, improving housing for the poor, etc. the moral absolutists claim that we need to let capitalism run its course because it is the best system, and any type of a social contract is communism incarnated (of course, it is not, but thy have no idea). However, when you propose legislating the way other people live, they are the first ones to support it. So, if there is money involved such as nice juicy governnment contracts, some people will take advantage of every oportunity to go and show the evil dictators how good we are and how evil they are. We will do this as long as it represents a profit. So, if 20 saudis, who have ties with the saudi government attack the US, we will punish them, by invading afganistan and Irak. However, we will not touch saudi arabia because it is not profitable. Send me the cookie. No, never mind the cookie, how about a nice ti frame ;-) Andres (Jonesy) wrote in message . com... (andres muro) wrote in message om... (Jonesy) wrote in message . com... Tom Sherman wrote in message ... Jonesy wrote: ... Then, no good can come of it. Ever. (This is the moral argument. The ends/means argument is where some good can come of it. Try to keep those straight henceforth.)... This is logically wrong. No, it actually isn't. Read some Kant for his views on right vs. wrong. Jonesy: Actually, Kant talks about the categorical imperative which is not grounded on logic, but in faith. The categorical imperative stipulates that we should always take the morally correct route because this is the imperative supercedes everything else. Give that man a cookie! I had never dared hope to find intelligence in USENET.  Kant's initial and fundemental premise is one of faith; the rest of his argument proceeds from that logically. But since faith is the sticking point of his entire argument, an ethical system in which faith is NOT the centerpiece will be under concurrent debate. His philosophy is an analogy to modern conservative Christian thinking. [snip Kant, and amusing GWB commentary] The reason I use Kant as an example is because modern Christian conservatives (the kind Mark identifies with) have just such a faith-based premise as their beginning point. If one abandons the absolute references to become utilitarian, then that may call into questions other aspects of belief - the belief that they might know, and be able to define, which acts are good and which are evil. By defining acts based on the outcome, the morality of those acts suddenly becomes... Relative. And if you have not heard, cultural conservatives in the U.S. these days declare that there is no such thing as moral relativity. If there exists a conservative that doesn't cling to this absolutist philosophy, I have not yet heard of him/her. In any case, how may an individual or small group of individuals be able to declare with objectivity what things are for the "greater good"? That one's always been a stumper for me. For me, disk brakes on my mountain bike are for the greater good. But their value to a road bike seems minimal in my opinion.
|
|
#400
July 15th 04, 04:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I was misled
Mark Hickey wrote in message . ..
http://jibjab.com/thisland.html Unfortunately, these guys are getting slammed with hits. I saw it before the website got blasted so hard you can't get to the thing. It's damn funny. It got me thinking (I know that's hard for Jonesy to believe...) I realize that you believe you are thinking. In reality, you are just parroting conservative commentators who also buy into the propaganda. If I thought for a minute that you had any substantial criticism of the way conservatives go about things, I'd have more respect for your views. (As if my respect means anything to you.) -- Jonesy
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
