A Question of Divine Inspiration
 

Wow. Good points. Maybe you're right!

But, spank, just in case sam is wrong, remind me to make a toast of blessed mead to Sam, once you and I are part of the heavenly multitudes.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Stalin most surely did not. (Not sure about Hitler.)

Look at actions, not words or abstract philosophies to which they purportedly subscribed.

S_A_M

On the subject of Jews....
 

You shoud thank him, nonetheless. Uncircumcised penises are just nasty looking.

S_A_M

[eta: Just doing my part to elevate the tone.]

A Question of Divine Inspiration
 

Don't overestimate his open armed tolerance in life with the judgment of his Dad after death. That is a moral relativistic liberal perversion.

Is This a Public Benefit?
 

More so than a shopping center, but that is a low standard. Pro-sports are a deplorable public benefit, akin to nothing more than a memorial park to fatslobcommierabblerouserdemofriend Michael Moore.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

PoPD. It was a hand off from someone else, like Begala handing off a project to Carville.

BS. The Cindy Sheehan/Soros/Moveon crowd didn't have the complaints about Clinton that they do of Bush.

On the subject of Jews....
 

And how much looking are you doing? Nttawwt.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

That has nothing to do with what I said.

Who thinks that Cindy Sheehan is a true pacifist, expressing a well-defined philosophy developed after significant moral reflection?

I don't know whether Soros is a pacifist, and there is no evidence that MoveOn.org is a pacifist organization. IIRC -- MoveOn was founded to develop a progressive movement to oppose Bush, not to end the war.

You surely know that opposition to The Bush administration and/or the War in Iraq does not equate to pacifism or, for that matter, moral relativism.

For once, cut the crap.

S_A_M

On the subject of Jews....
 

Doesn't take much. npi. nttawwt. fwiw.

A Question of Divine Inspiration
 

So, the Jews and Muslims have it right, then . . . Christ was just a prophet/holy man?

Or, is he truly the path to salvation? If you believe the latter, your argument doesn't work.

S_A_M

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Perhaps this definition is more closely aligned with what I mean by relativism:

Relativism

n : (philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved

The source is Dictionary.com

I can't accept your philosophy.

In the first place, I think it's inconsistent to argue that a universal moral code is instinctual and that it comes from God. But setting that aside, if man's sense of right and wrong is instinctual, then it would not need to be learned, which has been a cornerstone of your argument all along.

Finally, man has consistently moved away from instinctual to learned behaviors. This is widely asserted to be what separates us from the other animals, our ability to learn and reason. If right and wfrong were isntincutal, then we would see a common acceptance of your universal moral code from the beginning. If anything, history would demonstrate a pattern of moving from behaviors that are more moral in the past to more decadent in the present, as our society moved from more primitive to more developed, or at least a consistent, higher morality from the beginning forward. I think we would agree that the opposite situation has in fact occurred.

While I agree that we have a general moral code that is more respectful of human rights and of human life than many other societies, we are faced with a paradox. How can we force our superior moral code on others without violating the very rights that we profess to be enforcing?

If we use military pressure to force those societies that practice savery to cease, are we enslaving them? If we invade Iraq to "bring democracy" to the oppressed Iraqis, is our forced conversion not undemocratic?

You cannot claim that all people everywhere have the same rights and are subject to the sme moral code and then break that code to force them to adopt it. That is why I am a relativist.

I agree that the regime in Iraq was evil and had to come down. I just don't accept that that was the true motiviation for our going in. I'm also very sceptical that Iraq was as great a catalyst in fomenting Islamist terrorism as it has become in the wake of our invasion.

Right cause, wrong reason.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Wonk has already defined moral relativism and I accepted his definition. For the upteenth time moral relativism is:

rel·a·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rl-t-vzm)
n. Philosophy
A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.



I already said that Ghandi was not a moral relativist.

However, when considering most of the pacifists that I know they think they are moral relativists. My sister is one of them. The same people that like to say that we should not impose "western values" on other people are the same people that seem to believe in nonviolence. The same people that think it is abhorent to try and impose our values in Iraq are the same people that freak out over Chinas treatment of Tibet.

Penske seems to get all the attention from the liberals. It is very difficult to get noticed around here.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

Are you kidding?
I am looking at actions. Stalin murdered millions of Russians to benefit Russia as a whole. Almost every action he took showed that he believed that anything was justifiable as long as it benefit the many (the state).

Hitler on the other hand that statement may not be entirely correct. He believed anything was OK as long as it benefitted the German people (that is not necessarily the same as the many). He planned to kill off all the Slavic people and they outnumbered the Germans.

Differing Concepts of Justice and Freedom
 

That's valid if life begins at conception. I don't accept that premise. Furthermore, there is a difference between a medical treatment to prevent an event from occurring and the act of killing a four year-old.

Affirmative homicide aside, we make choices between one life and another all the time in the allocation of scarce resources. Ask anyone on an organ donor list.

We also make economic allocation resource decisions that may affect human life on a daily basis. I show up at the hospital with angina and I'm rushed into the operating room for an angioplasty at once. The waitress at a place I eat a lot has heart trouble but she doesn't have health insurance. She waited six months to have her angioplasty done at County.

I generally don't favor abortion. But I also believe that each decision to abort or not is so particular to the mother and the fetus that the procedure is not susceptible to regulation by the state or federal government. So you could say that, while I'm generally anti-abortion, I'm also pro-choice.

By declaring itself pro-life, the anti-abortion movement hurts itself by coming off as hypocritical and by politicizing what is a social, not a governmental problem.

Just a small request.......
 

Now if only we could get Penske to see it and adjust his posting style accordingly, I think this would be a better place.