We Will Be Hit Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Shoebolt wrote:
Moral absolutes? Who are you kidding here? Yourself?

Preferring to obliterate or impose a way of life on a certain people due to the extremism of a handful of misguided ones is your idea of morality?

I feel sorry for you mate.

Attempting to free a people is not obliterating them or imposing a way of life upon them. Is setting a slave free imposing a way of life upon him?

Feel sorry for yourself.

Did the afore mentioned people asked to be liberated?
Or was the decision made for ,and imposed on ,them?

Just trying to see how that philosophical viewpoint holds up…

Ummm…if you asked, you got tied to a chair and a power drill was used on your hand. Or you got to watch your children be buried alive. Or both.

THAT’S what you’re defending?

[/quote]
I’m defending nothing.I’m not the one harping on about moral absolutes and how all human relationships should be VOLUNTARY from both sides etc,etc…
Mine was a question of philosophical viewpoint.Either one is consistent or one is full of it…what is it to be?
Or is all the posturing relative to when it suits?
A little clarification is what I’m after,not emotional obfuscation.

42

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
No adult person thinks in moral absolutes and those that think they do are either lying to themselves or mistake following moral absolutes with bending their knees to authority…

People who think they think in moral absolutes usually have so many clauses and sub clauses in their value system that they might as well be moral relativists…

You read one of my absolutes above. Do you disagree with it?

All relationships must be voluntary. Anyone breaking this rule is a criminal and is dealt with according to moral and objective laws.

If you disagree with it, you make my case: you believe in slaves and masters. Can we guess which one you want to be?

[/quote]

So, if someone does not agree with you, in action of course, that all relationships should be voluntary, you are all for using violence aren`t you?

So your “absolute law” is:

All relationships should be voluntary, unless of course an individual does not live according to that rule…

Sounds relativist to me…

43

[quote]orion wrote:

You read one of my absolutes above. Do you disagree with it?

All relationships must be voluntary. Anyone breaking this rule is a criminal and is dealt with according to moral and objective laws.

If you disagree with it, you make my case: you believe in slaves and masters. Can we guess which one you want to be?

So, if someone does not agree with you, in action of course, that all relationships should be voluntary, you are all for using violence aren`t you?

So your “absolute law” is:

All relationships should be voluntary, unless of course an individual does not live according to that rule…

Sounds relativist to me…[/quote]

So, you’re saying that I would immediately violate my principle if I did not ‘get my way’. If that were true, why would I hold to that principle in the first place? Why not simply say that might makes right? Why even enter into a rational discussion at all?

Think through your ideas before presenting these. Your friends won’t laugh at you but…

BTW: How do you judge if a principle is relative? Do you have to have some absolute standard by which to judge? If not, then how do you know its ‘relative’? Why isn’t that judgment just a matter of opinion?

You see, Orion, you are using absolutes, though your liberal profs taught you to self-delude yourself. What was their goal in deceiving you that way? Destruction, maybe??

44

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:

You read one of my absolutes above. Do you disagree with it?

All relationships must be voluntary. Anyone breaking this rule is a criminal and is dealt with according to moral and objective laws.

If you disagree with it, you make my case: you believe in slaves and masters. Can we guess which one you want to be?

So, if someone does not agree with you, in action of course, that all relationships should be voluntary, you are all for using violence aren`t you?

So your “absolute law” is:

All relationships should be voluntary, unless of course an individual does not live according to that rule…

Sounds relativist to me…

So, you’re saying that I would immediately violate my principle if I did not ‘get my way’. If that were true, why would I hold to that principle in the first place? Why not simply say that might makes right? Why even enter into a rational discussion at all?

Think through your ideas before presenting these. Your friends won’t laugh at you but…

BTW: How do you judge if a principle is relative? Do you have to have some absolute standard by which to judge? If not, then how do you know its ‘relative’? Why isn’t that judgment just a matter of opinion?

You see, Orion, you are using absolutes, though your liberal profs taught you to self-delude yourself. What was their goal in deceiving you that way? Destruction, maybe??

[/quote]

I did not say you advocate violence if you do not get your way, I said you would advocate violence under certain conditions, violating your moral absolute rule…

So you have an absolute rule that just got a little bit more complicated…

I am sure we could think of other exceptions were you would agree with the use of violence and voil?!, you represent a point of view that is hardly distinguishable from moral relativism as far as weighing -who, did what, to whom, under what circumstances- goes…

You just want to be told by an “objective” law, i.e. by an authority, whereas the moral realtivist is his own authority…

45

The only moral absolute in the universe is:

Don’t drink my beer for me unless I ask you to.

Unless I’m passed out already. Or I’m so obviously wasted I can’t even stand. Or if you do it by mistake. Or if I knock a full ashtray into it. Or…

No, you see… even the most sacred laws of beer are relative, aren’t they?

46

[quote]orion wrote:

You just want to be told by an “objective” law, i.e. by an authority, whereas the moral realtivist is his own authority…[/quote]

Violence is only allowed, under my principle, only for defense. Only if someone initiates violence, or plainly states that they intend to harm me, is violence allowed.

47

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:

You just want to be told by an “objective” law, i.e. by an authority, whereas the moral realtivist is his own authority…

Violence is only allowed, under my principle, only for defense. Only if someone initiates violence, or plainly states that they intend to harm me, is violence allowed.

[/quote]
By that definition any act of violence could be construed to be ‘defensive’.
I agree with the ‘initiates violence’,but the rest is just too relative to the interpretation one chooses to adopt.
A pre emptive strike,wether in a personal or national capacity,is an 'offensive’or ‘aggresive’ act,by definition.
That does not make it wrong.
But it cannot be called ‘defensive’.
Of course we can get all caught up in the semantics of the issue,but that would be just so much mental masturbation…

48

I don’t think Kim Jung Il stating ‘Negotiate with us or we’ll nuke you.’ is obscure in the least. His country should now be a nuclear wasteland.

See my thread about Iran’s promise. They should be a wasteland by now as well.

Unless we stop this now, we WILL get WW3 and we will lose millions of our people. Nip it in the bud TODAY!!!

49

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t think Kim Jung Il stating ‘Negotiate with us or we’ll nuke you.’ is obscure in the least. His country should now be a nuclear wasteland.

See my thread about Iran’s promise. They should be a wasteland by now as well.

Unless we stop this now, we WILL get WW3 and we will lose millions of our people. Nip it in the bud TODAY!!![/quote]

Nip it the bud?
You write like this is a horticultural convention,not the proposed death of millions of innocents. The Chinese are already all over the NK about the ‘alleged’ nuclear test and they WILL sort his crazy ass out.But of course after the mass nuking you advocate and the wind changes,and the nuclear fallout gets gently blown over the Chinese,the South Koreans (Allies,the last time I checked),the Japanese and whoever happens to inherit it,I’m sure they will all be very understanding…
As for Iran,when their nuclear program started,guess who it was that was GAGGING to sell them the technology at the time?
And sleep easy,the Israelis are more than capable of handling them.
And it still doesn’t change the fact that it would be an ‘offensive’ strike,not ‘defensive’.

Though I’m pretty sure you just post this kind of thing to wind people up and play Devil’s Advocate…

So don’t stop!

50

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t think Kim Jung Il stating ‘Negotiate with us or we’ll nuke you.’ is obscure in the least. His country should now be a nuclear wasteland.

See my thread about Iran’s promise. They should be a wasteland by now as well.

Unless we stop this now, we WILL get WW3 and we will lose millions of our people. Nip it in the bud TODAY!!![/quote]

Now you are finally getting the idea!

We should pull out of Iraq and turn that desert into a big glass plate first.

Followed by Iran, NK, Saudi Arabia, and anyone else that crys foul.

51

No one likes us-I don’t know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let’s drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they’re spiteful and they’re hateful
They don’t respect us-so let’s surprise them
We’ll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia’s crowded and Europe’s too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada’s too cold
And South America stole our name
Let’s drop the big one
There’ll be no one left to blame us

We’ll save Australia
Don’t wanna hurt no kangaroo
We’ll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin’, too

Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We’ll set everybody free
You’ll wear a Japanese kimono
And there’ll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let’s drop the big one now
Let’s drop the big one now

52

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t think Kim Jung Il stating ‘Negotiate with us or we’ll nuke you.’ is obscure in the least. His country should now be a nuclear wasteland.

See my thread about Iran’s promise. They should be a wasteland by now as well.

Unless we stop this now, we WILL get WW3 and we will lose millions of our people. Nip it in the bud TODAY!!![/quote]

The terrorists are just sitting back and waiting for a Democrat to be elected, so they can re-build their training camps, and create a new strategy for attacking the U.S., all while we are letting diplomacy take effect. Im sure the next time they come knockin on our door, they wont underestimate America`s ability to react to aggression.

53

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I don’t think Kim Jung Il stating ‘Negotiate with us or we’ll nuke you.’ is obscure in the least. His country should now be a nuclear wasteland.

See my thread about Iran’s promise. They should be a wasteland by now as well.

Unless we stop this now, we WILL get WW3 and we will lose millions of our people. Nip it in the bud TODAY!!!

Now you are finally getting the idea!

We should pull out of Iraq and turn that desert into a big glass plate first.

Followed by Iran, NK, Saudi Arabia, and anyone else that crys foul.[/quote]

Agreed–that’s what Jesus would do.

54

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We have not been hit again because we have presented a united front to the terrorists. Now, if the congress goes to the Dems, the squabbling and gridlock will ensue. Perfect time to hit us…

I’m a teacher in Ohio. If I can think of that, won’t Osama and his minions as well?

HH[/quote]

This has no bearing on a possible attack! The fact of the matter is we will be attacked for our continued support of Israeli aggression in the occupied territories, our invasion of Iraq on sham excuses and our meddling in foreign countries affairs.

Bush Administration played into the hands of terrorists by launching an invasion into Iraq which in turn created more hostility and fueled legions of would be terrorists to join in the fight against the U.S.

55

[quote]SLERG wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I don’t think Kim Jung Il stating ‘Negotiate with us or we’ll nuke you.’ is obscure in the least. His country should now be a nuclear wasteland.

See my thread about Iran’s promise. They should be a wasteland by now as well.

Unless we stop this now, we WILL get WW3 and we will lose millions of our people. Nip it in the bud TODAY!!!

The terrorists are just sitting back and waiting for a Democrat to be elected, so they can re-build their training camps, and create a new strategy for attacking the U.S., all while we are letting diplomacy take effect. Im sure the next time they come knockin on our door, they wont underestimate America`s ability to react to aggression.

[/quote]

The terrorists already re-built their training camps.

Where have you been?

56

[quote]Floortom wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I don’t think Kim Jung Il stating ‘Negotiate with us or we’ll nuke you.’ is obscure in the least. His country should now be a nuclear wasteland.

See my thread about Iran’s promise. They should be a wasteland by now as well.

Unless we stop this now, we WILL get WW3 and we will lose millions of our people. Nip it in the bud TODAY!!!

Now you are finally getting the idea!

We should pull out of Iraq and turn that desert into a big glass plate first.

Followed by Iran, NK, Saudi Arabia, and anyone else that crys foul.

Agreed–that’s what Jesus would do.

[/quote]

Too bad Jesus did not have any nukes as they were not invented yet.

57

…hahahaha…

Strong united front against terrorists?

You can’t have a front against an IDEA.

Terrorists are not one people. And the few major organizations that exist, we’ve been doing next to nothing about, because they weren’t and aren’t in Iraq, but are sitting away in hideholes in Iran and Pakistan.

If you seriously think that the terrorists give two shits about who we elect or what our policy is, you don’t understand terrorism.

Terrorism is not a nation.It is not the Soviet Union, and it is not the Nazi’s. Stop treating it that way.

The dem’s aren’t weak on terrorism. The bills they attempt to stop are about limiting freedoms to gain security, something that, in a time when we aren’t in a MAJOR war with OURSELVES (not to call Iraq minor in any way, but this isn’t the Civil War), is completely unamerican.

Stop blaming everything on a party. The US is fucked up right now because our politicians only work in extremes. Even if George W. Bush beleived stem cell research is the way of the future (and it most definetly is), he can’t stand that way because it would hurt his standings with his party.

If you actually beleive we are in any way, shape or form safer than we were pre 9/11, your a fool.

You may say “we haven’t been hit again”. But, how many times have we been hit, ever? Four, maybe five major attacks in the history of our nation’s soil? There not a fucking country. Terrorists didn’t “declare war” on America. They EXIST to create terror. They’ve ALWAYS existed, and even though we are more aware of them recently, there have been terrorists arounf for a long time.

Why didn’t 9/11 happened during Jimmy Carters reign? Or Clintons? Or Bush Seniors?

It wasn’t Clintons fault. It wasn’t Bush’s fault. It was the dems OR the GOP’s fault. It was the terrorists fault. And unless we stand TOGETHER by using reasonable, constitutional, Geneva convention abiding, comprimises, we can start creating a safer enviroment.

58

i dont like to get into political discussions, but anyone who believes the “they hate us for our freedom” or “they hate our democracy” deserves to be in a zoo, in the “evolutionary mistakes” wing.

the terrorists keep repeating that they are doing what they’re doing because of US meddling in middle eastern affairs. it seems to me that if democrats come into office, the terrorists would have less of reason to hate America or to attack it.

plus what does the number of ppl in congress have to do with america’s military and defensive capabilities. i dont think it mattres how “divided” or “united” you are.

just my two cents.

59

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
To refute it, that would indicate that it made a damn bit of sense in the first place.[/quote]

It does make sense it that we have brought the fight to the terrorists. Instead of them trying to hit on American soil they are too busy trying to hit our troops in Iraq. Iraq is now a magnet for all these Islamic assholes. We are on their turf and it pisses them off.

So whether or not you like it or think is was a good idea, the fact is that the Iraq war has kept the terrorists busy and the result has been no attack on American soil.

60

[quote]silencer wrote:
i dont like to get into political discussions, but anyone who believes the “they hate us for our freedom” or “they hate our democracy” deserves to be in a zoo, in the “evolutionary mistakes” wing.

the terrorists keep repeating that they are doing what they’re doing because of US meddling in middle eastern affairs. it seems to me that if democrats come into office, the terrorists would have less of reason to hate America or to attack it.

plus what does the number of ppl in congress have to do with america’s military and defensive capabilities. i dont think it mattres how “divided” or “united” you are.

just my two cents.[/quote]

You are right, we really should back out of the middle east conflict and let Israel nuke all the Islamic nations. Then our problem would be solved all the way around. Make no mistake, the US has held back Israel many times from totally taking out many Arab nations.

So if the Islamic assholes want us out, let’s get out and tell Israel to do what they want.

BOOM!