Waiting for Fitzgerald - Page 152

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I find that plausible. Of course, even if he actually did say it, I'd expect the White House to deny it too.

Bush moral clarity comes from his guidance from the Lourde.

Spanky · 10-07-2005, 06:16 PM

Our whole countrys legal system is based on the idea that there is a universal moral code and there is no moral relativism. It was clearly illegal for the colonies to declare independence from England. To justify it Jefferson did not say, well it may be illegal but we are going to declare independence anyway because it is in our interest to do so. Jefferson said that there is a higher law, that the creator gives all men rights, and if a government violates those rights (violates gods law, or the universal moral code) then people have the legal right, under the Creators laws, to declare themselves independent of those laws.

The whole idea of Justice assumes there is no moral relativism. If you argue in equity you are saying that something may be illegal but it is still OK. Then you are saying that although something you are arguing is not in line with the law, but is in line with a higher law. The concept of Justice (where Justice is different from legal) implies a higher absolute law.

taxwonk · 10-07-2005, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Where's the part about homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of the Lord?

That was the argument underlying the plank. If you want to research the rhetoric that went into adopting the plank, go ahead. You may as well, since you aren't spending any time giving simple honest answers to questions about your stated beliefs.

taxwonk · 10-07-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Gods disapproves of the sinful liberals sinful ways, all other answers flow from there.

I believe he disapproves more of those who take his name in vain. In any event, Penske, it is apparent that you are unwilling and unable to even state with any specificity any political philosophy, because every time you try, you find it frought with inherent inconsistencies and contradictions.

This is not, in an absolute sense (pun definitely intended), a bad thing. But it is sort of fatal when you refuse to admit or cannot accept anything but absolutes. Clear lines drawn in easy to mimic black and white, even if those lines cross over each other so many times as to blend into an incoherent mess.

I tire of this.

Not Bob · 10-07-2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Tally so far:

Yes: 2
No: 2
Other: 1

Yes.

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
That was the argument underlying the plank. If you want to research the rhetoric that went into adopting the plank, go ahead. You may as well, since you aren't spending any time giving simple honest answers to questions about your stated beliefs.

I did give an answer, its just not one you are open to.

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob
Yes.

Yes: 4
No: 2
Other: 1

Gattigap · 10-07-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Yes: 4
No: 2
Other: 1

Yes.

taxwonk · 10-07-2005, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Just because Penske thinks that the Republican platform is not in line with Gods law does not mean that it is based on moral relativism. Both the Republicans that wrote the platform and Penske believe in absolute right and wrong they just disagree with what things are right and wrong. In other words they disagree with what is right and wrong, but they both believe there is a universal right and wrong.

That is a far cry from thinking that right and wrong change with the cultural and with circumstances. If both Penske and the people that wrote the platform believed in moral relativism there would be no argument because the two of them could just agree that certain morals apply to one and not the other.

A person that is a moral relativist does not really believe in right or wrong, or Just or unjust.

You're incorrect. I am a moral relativist and I not only believe in right and wrong, but I believe in some absolute rights and wrongs. However, unlike Penske, I am willing to put them up for debate, and I also believe I can reconcile them into a coherent whole.If I couldn't, I wouldn't waste my time here, because I would not be able to do anythhing but troll. And that is an insult to anybody who believes that honest debate can create an atmosphere of change.

taxwonk · 10-07-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Our whole countrys legal system is based on the idea that there is a universal moral code and there is no moral relativism. It was clearly illegal for the colonies to declare independence from England. To justify it Jefferson did not say, well it may be illegal but we are going to declare independence anyway because it is in our interest to do so. Jefferson said that there is a higher law, that the creator gives all men rights, and if a government violates those rights (violates gods law, or the universal moral code) then people have the legal right, under the Creators laws, to declare themselves independent of those laws.

The whole idea of Justice assumes there is no moral relativism. If you argue in equity you are saying that something may be illegal but it is still OK. Then you are saying that although something you are arguing is not in line with the law, but is in line with a higher law. The concept of Justice (where Justice is different from legal) implies a higher absolute law.

I disagree. If this were true, then why would we need a Bill of Rights to protect the right to dissent and to prevent the tyranny of the majority?

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I believe he disapproves more of those who take his name in vain. In any event, Penske, it is apparent that you are unwilling and unable to even state with any specificity any political philosophy, because every time you try, you find it frought with inherent inconsistencies and contradictions.

Dissent. There is a clear path if you want to follow it. If you want to dumb everything down into the murk of your moral relativism where there is no right or wrong, you get the liberals system of cultural and moral ruination, where rape, murder, perjury and racism exist as excusable behaviours of their leaders.

Penske_Account · 10-07-2005, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I disagree. If this were true, then why would we need a Bill of Rights to protect the right to dissent and to prevent the tyranny of the majority?

To empower our ability to protect our natural rights, with the 2nd Amendment.

Spanky · 10-07-2005, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Bush moral clarity comes from his guidance from the Lourde.

Give me a break........

Spanky · 10-07-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
You're incorrect. I am a moral relativist and I not only believe in right and wrong, but I believe in some absolute rights and wrongs. However, unlike Penske, I am willing to put them up for debate, and I also believe I can reconcile them into a coherent whole.If I couldn't, I wouldn't waste my time here, because I would not be able to do anythhing but troll. And that is an insult to anybody who believes that honest debate can create an atmosphere of change.

How can you be a moral relativist but believe in absolute right and wrong?

Spanky · 10-07-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I disagree. If this were true, then why would we need a Bill of Rights to protect the right to dissent and to prevent the tyranny of the majority?

The whole point of the legal system is to constantly change it so it conforms to a higher law. "We change the laws all the time so they can conform close do our idea of justice. Our rights come from our creator, but we need the government to enforce them. Some criticism of the Bill of Rights was that if you write them down, someone will assume that what you right down is all there is when there are clearly more.

When someone says that a law is unjust, they are saying that the law does not conform to what is right and wrong. It does not conform to the concrete universal code that we all assume exists. We expose our beliefe in this universal right and wrong when we say a law is unjust so it needs to be changed. We don't say it is wrong so it needs to only apply to some people and not others. We always argue that law should be applied equally to all men and women and that such laws should be just. In other words conform to the universal moral code.

Are you arguing that against the idea that Jefferson invoked the universal moral code when he justified our separation from England?