Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

if this is about north Africa- that's it. Your anti-islam rant has gone too far. I'm telling RT either you're banned or I'm of to Tucker Max.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Killing children is bad.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

When did I say that. I said one exists but I never said I know what the whole code says. Are you just one of those people that look for stuff to get upset about.



Did I ever say that Amnesty International was wrong when it said that the US committed human rights violations? Where the hell did that come from. When did I ever mention Amnesty International or critisize what they do. You are as bad as that Tax Wonk idiot.

Amnesty International runs into the same problem. They do a great job of supporting human rights around the world. But in the end, who are they to say what are and what are not human rights? when they tell the Burmese that it is wrong to keep political prisoners - what do they tell the Burmese (or Myanmar) government when they assert why they understand human rights better than they do? I support the idea of Amnesty International's efforts but I can't give a rational reason why I do. My instincts just tell me they are doing the right thing.

Amnesty International is a perfect illustration of the problem because they go all around the world telling governments what they should and shouldn't do. What makes them the holders of the wisdom and all these other governments wrong?

BTW: when I lived in Asia I did a lot of probono work for Amnesty International. Have you ever written letters for, donated money to or helped Amnesty International in any way?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

mmmmmmm bad

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

fwiw Taxwonk has bigger tits.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

But not in a good way.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

No. Do you? I believe it is wrong to kill innocent people. For some reason I think it is OK to kill cows, but not to kill people. I don't mind killing serial killers. Hitler thought he was doing the right think when he tried to exterminate the Jews.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Who says I'm upset? I'm mocking you. Not the same thing at all.

Meh. Calling people idiots is hardly a persuasive arguing technique. Almost never works in any way other than to make it clear that you didn't understand the other person's point. If you can't see how your previous USA-centric (let's annex Mexico! they won't mind!) views could be open for mocking here, we should just let this point go.

They certainly wouldn't be better off in their mission if they tried to change it into some sort of "because my God says so" argument. It is like Ty and fringey have repeated to you, far too patiently, already today, so I'm not going to sit here and debate this with you. I care not at all what you think at the end of the day.

Ah, the "when I lived in asia" part was so relevant there. Yes, yes and yes. And who the fuck has made it through (American!) college without writing letters for Amnesty International at some point (other than Hank, who is exempt from the human rights debate, as he has not been proven to be human yet)? I thought it was a prerequisite for a Bachelor's degree here.

Don't presume that you know shit about me, Spankster. I'm not going to pull my dick out* and measure it for you either.





*bigger than taxwonk's, I've heard!

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I am having trouble seeing where you are coming from. Some people believe morality is based on selfishness (mainly the Objestivists). I can see how that logically plays out. But if morality is not based on selfishness you just have to make assumption (or irrational leaps of faith). There is just no way around it. You just have to assume killing a person for no reason is bad. It may not hurt you, but it is still bad - just because. There is no rhyme or reason to it.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

About as effective as assiging positions to people that they never took, and then mocking them or arguing against them. As far as absorbing Mexico, only an idiot (there I go again) would assume it would be done without their permission. I never said just absord them. I could be wrong, but I think if given the chance most Mexicans would want their country to become part of ours. It would be convincing the Americans that would be the hard part.

If you don't care what I think, why don't you do us all a favor and ignore my posts.

Well yes - the Asia part was relevant - because for some unkown reason you decided that I have problems with Amnesty International. Where this came from - I don't know (maybe it has something to do with the idiocy issue I brought up before).

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm

You must be a ton of laughs to hang out with. I never presumed anything about your views on Amnesty Intl. How the fuck would I know? It was a fucking joke. I get that humor is lost on you, which is part of why it is so fun for me to mock you. I'm probably going to continue to do so, so buck up for it. Or put me on ignore. Whatever.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

This convo sounds oddly familar. have the two of you had drunken sex in Spanky's kitchen anytime within the last 5 years?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Don't bother. He won't get it.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I don't think we need to rely on the existence of a Creator to reach the conclusion that killing innocent people is wrong.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Why don't you start with The Golden Rule and see where it takes you? I can think of reasons to believe that killing is wrong, quite apart from God Says So.

And saying that it's wrong because God Says So is pretty arbitrary, too. How can you be sure? Why?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Ok. Why is it wrong to kill innocent people? Why should we follow the Golden rule?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

1) Can you really not think of a reason, apart from God Says So? If so, that's pretty lame.

2) People don't want to die (and when they do, we generally suspect their capacity to reason). People don't want to suffer. A respect for other people means that we should respect their wishes.

3) You can always respond "why" to any reason I give. If you're not going to bother to engage on the substance, I agree that reason doesn't get you very far. But if I were to say, "because God says so," you could say "why?" or "so?" just the same. What does that prove?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I have been saying that all along. It may be lame but it is the best I can come up with.

People may not want to die. If we kill them we may not be respecting their wishes. When people die their blood flow stops. The brain function stops. Their loved ones get upset. But non of these facts support the idea of why it is immoral to kill them. It just explains facts about their death. You say in order to respect them, we need to follow their wishes. That would only answer the question if we had established that respecting their wishes is moral. But you have not done that, so the fact that killing them disrepects their wishes gets you no where in your assertion that killing them is immoral. You can not make any of your arguments without making the assumption that something is moral with out explaining why.

I can always ask why because your responses go in circles. Its like I ask, how do you know tom is big? Tom is big because he wears shirts. Why do you think wearing shirts makes him big? I ask the why question because you stated something else that does not support why Tom is big. So I have to ask the question - why is Tom wearing a shirt make him big?

If I ask you if something is legal. The answer is it is illegal because there is a law against it. That answers the question. If you say it is illegal because it is bad, that does not answer the question. Bad may have been the reason that the law was passed, but the law itself makes it illegal.

I have asserted over and over that the terms moral, immoral, right or wrong imply a code, or a measuring device, and that the person you are talking to understands that measuring device.

Like I have said from the very beginning, unless we assume there is a common morality code between you and the person you are communicating with, terms like moral, immoral, right and wrong really have no meaning. They are terms that refer to nothing.

Which Angle
 

You know it is interesting because I have posed this dilemma to two friends of mine that are physics Phds from Caltech (clearly a lot smarter than I am). And not surprizingly they are both Atheists. They both immediately conceded that there is no such thing as common morality in a Godless universe. They believe morality is completely relative depending on the culture or whatever. They both think the idea of international human rights as a joke. They both insist, that in the end, all morality comes down to is self interest (as other people on this board insist). So every moral stance they take, or every political position they argue, comes down to self interest. One of them donates to Amnesty international and he gave me what I thought was a very tortured rational of why donating to Amnesty international served his self interest. Trex on the other hand is focusing on (or what I think he is focusing on) is a rational foundation for universal morality (or universal human rights). That a rational argument (that is not based solely on self interest) could be made that supports the idea of international human rights.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I will stipulate that none of this has a meaning, in the sense that you can always ask "why" or "so" in a question for further meaning still. This reminds me of the anecdote told by Clifford Geertz, in one of his books, about the English anthropologist who inquires about the Indian myth that the world rests on the back of an elephant, which rests on the back of a turtle. "What does the turtle rest on?" the Englishman asks. The Indian replies, "Ah, sahib, after that it is turtles all the way down."

So go ahead, and keep asking about the next turtle down.

What confuses me is why you are impressed in some way with the answer, "because God says so." It's has no more explanatory force than the explanations that you reject, and yet it seems to please you.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

How about Baal Don't Lie?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

That. Is. Awesome.

I dunno about Spanky, but I feel bad when I hear about people I don't know being killed. I feel good when I help someone, even if I don't know her. It's odd I know, but in talking to other people, they feel similarly.

The devil, of course, is in the details, but I don't think that some higher power has something to do with it unless you define higher power as "humanity".

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

When loberry said Shape Shifter was dumbest it made me feel good. Does that mean I'm inhumane?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

All of which seems to point to the conclusion that there aren't, in fact, universal moral standards - you and many others think there are, but that is just a delusion. (In much the same way, basically, everyone here thinks that their position in any given argument is right and others only disagree because they don't fully understand it yet, but over time all sensible people will wake up and more or less agree.)

The idea that there is an objective universal truth to "morality" or whatever may be just a rationalization for feeling so strongly about something that you want to force everyone else to the same position. I think the problem you've discovered is that you have realized this is BS, but can't stomach the idea that something you feel so strongly about isn't, in fact, some great truth with an existence beyond yourself and your feelings.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I haven't followed all this (and I say Praise the Lord for that), but if what you're say is that we don't need a universal standard to have either (i) God or (ii) morality, then I couldn't agree more. Perhaps God's way are not bound up in a dichotomy of good versus evil, and that an act may be good without being purely good (or the other way around).

Morality is, it strikes me, as much a social construct and need as one that is grounded in "truth". The idea that morality may itself be temporally and culturally bound doesn't, however, lessen the idea of its being moral. And the idea that God may be more of a way of life or a search than an absolute doesn't strike me as leaving some gaping gash needing to be filled.

But if no one can agree on something as being universally (as far as our world goes) bad, perhaps there is something that is universally or near universally good.

Now, I must go meditate.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I think I remember that Spankmymonkey doesn't actually really work or something? So he should have time to read the three (3) philosophy reference guides mentioned in the review of the revised/updated edition of what his beloved Economist opines is the best of the three. He can then get back to us.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Ah, a right to lifer among us! (Perhaps you'd like to join me for Mass some time?)

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

You and Spank[m]y[monkey], thinking that anyone who has any kind of moral compass whatsoever must therefore be interested in the whole "god" thing.

What do people think about this issue?

"The [Teamsters] union represents some 2,150 workers at the facilities. Atlanta-based CCE is independent from the Coca-Cola Co., but sells approximately 80 percent of its North American bottle and can volume. Union officials, in statements and interviews with BNA, linked the strike to objections to proposed premium increases for rank-and-file workers while CCE executives are given lavish compensation packages.

For example, IBT pointed to Summerfield Johnston Jr., a former chairman of the board who has a consulting contract with the company. According to Securities and Exchange Commission filings, Johnston receives $600,000 per year, a paid seat on the board of directors, health care coverage for life for himself and his dependants,* financial planning and tax benefit consulting, use of the company aircraft, an office including a secretary and office supplies, and restricted shares of company stock."

http://pubs.bna.com/ip/BNA/pbd.nsf/is/a0b0x2e1n5

*I didn't review the entire filing, but I believe that under the coverage, the company pays everything for the ex-board member and dependents -- they pay not one thin dime out of pocket. Sweet.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Surely she didn't mean it as an absolute.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

You have asserted repeatedly that there must be a divine source for a universal moral code. However, you also have repreatedly posited that any example of a society that is pre-Judeo-Christian is not one that had a valid universal moral code. Hence my inference.

If I misunderstood you, I apologize.


You have not really offered explanations. You have rejected rational arguments for the existence of a non-divine morality, you have acknowledged that they don't make sense to you, and you have repeated that your belief in a universal morality is based upon faith in a divine source.

My criticism of this process is that it keeps wandering down tangents. Once the tangents are stretched to the point where it becomes apparent they are not relevant to the question you posited, you then declare the non-relevance of the tangent to be proof of your hypothesis.

I was attempting to offer Chinaskian constructive criticism in suggesting that you step back, reformulate your hypothesis, and stick to that point. Doing so would allow you to respond to your issue, instead of arguing about things that are not apposite to your main hypothesis.

It is clear that my constructive criticism was not taken in the spirit in which it was intended. My bad. Please accept my apology.

In board lingo, this is known as "phoning it in." Just trying to fill you in local custom. Namaste.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

IBT and Johnston are evil and I want a similar contract.

I trust he needs to do very little for the $600,000, other than toe the management line at board meetings?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Nope. Too Judeo-Christian.

Bolton
 

He looks like the cartoon character that is a dog and a sheriff. What is that character's name??

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg....055055833.jpg?

Fucking red X. The picture on this page: http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration/

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

Actually I thought at times he was saying 1 morality came from god but 2 morality has improved over time.

Those seem contradictory- like shouldn't we have been better when the actual instruction from God was more recent?

Bolton
 

The first time I saw his mug was on Fox's page. There was a headline about a child molester who killed a girl in Fla next to the shot. until I looked closer and saw it was adifferent story, I thought he looked the part

Can I borrow your cigar cutter?
 

Yes, but that's not a moral issue; it's a mohel issue.

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I don't think there's a problem for the simple reason that all of the bases asserted in support of universal human rights is an article of faith. Some of us put our faith in God and some put it in the human race. Either way, we all have acknowledged the existence of some force that collectively drives us (admittedly some segments of "us" are driven at different rates) to increased social cooperation in the interest of mutual survival and benefit.

Why not just accept it on faith that we collectively are inherently good and not worry that we don't know exactly why?

Bolton
 

Deputy Dawg?

Sorry, Flinty, nothing personal
 

I can't speak for the goyim, but for the Jews, it just makes you Reformed.