Waiting for Fitzgerald

[sgtclub]

Eminent domain to be used for new baseball stadium:


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0902-5838r.htm

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
dissent. The universal moral code by definition is not changing.

Perhaps not. But our understanding of it is. And we've already established your inability to articulate the smallest fragment of it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I agree with this statement, with the qualifier that the moral code is also subject to change and a balancing of competing values.

I don't think values compete. I think values are determined by instinct. And I think instinctually we all have the same values. However, sometimes people confuse values with other instincts. As an example homosexuality. I think people's hatred of homosexuality is based more from fear than from instinctual values. The people are just confusing the two.

When someone says that how can you critisize two people who love eachother entering into a permanent committed loving relationship? That is not an appeal to logic or rational. That is an appeal to someone instinct of values.

When people condemn homosexuality I think that condemnation is based on fear and prejudice and not from value based instincts. But I think deep down all people understand that it two people love eachother and want to commit to eachother there is nothing wrong with that.

Societies debate of the our legal code, is an attempt to figure out which laws are based on other things as opposed to our internal sense of right and wrong.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
Eminent domain to be used for new baseball stadium:


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...0902-5838r.htm

New Orleans is next.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't believe there is a universal moral code. I believe that there are some basic universal principles upon which the relations between humans must balance.

So basically you believe rights and laws come from a place that allow people to get along with eachother. Rights and laws are there so communities can funciton in an orderly way. So if in certain societies, if female circumscission, or throwing widows into their late husband's funeral pyre help those societies to function in an orderly and peaceful manner, then we cannot critisize them? I believe such activities are a violation of the universal moral code and are wrong, no matter what practical application, or rational behind such customs.

I also believe that almost everyone on this board agrees with that however it will be interesting to see who admits to it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I said I believe in SOME absolute rights and wrongs. Very few, but some. Examples: I believe in the absolute right of each person to vote and I believe that rape is absolutely wrong.

I know you said you believe in SOME absolute rights and wrongs. And again I pose the same question. How can you believe in SOME absolute rights and wrongs and be a moral relativists? If certain rights and wrongs are ABSOLTES does that not make you and moral ABSOLUTIST and not a RELATIVIST. If you are a moral relativist does that not mean that ALL morals and rights are relative?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I agree with this statement, with the qualifier that the moral code is also subject to change and a balancing of competing values.

I don't think the moral code is changing, I just think our understanding of it is. Slavery has always been wrong. Some people have always understood this. It has just taken time for the majority of people to understand this.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Perhaps not. But our understanding of it is. And we've already established your inability to articulate the smallest fragment of it.

If I may, here is a small fragment of it:

"All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights, among these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

[Spanky]

I am not sure how this Heaven and Hell thing works but I do have a small request. I would like to go wherever I get to:

Spend an eternity with:

Aristotle, Plato, Ghandi, Da Vinci, Einstein, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Phyllis Diller, Galileo, the Cathars and Andy Kaufman.

And do not spend an eternity with:

Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jerry Fallwell, Dr. Dobson, Tammy Faye Baker, John Ashcroft and any employee of the Spanish Inquisition.

So whatever that location is (Heaven or Hell), I want to go there.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Perhaps not. But our understanding of it is. And we've already established your inability to articulate the smallest fragment of it.

Nice personalisation of your politics of destruction. I think what bothers you is my articulation of more than a small fragment which offends your (a)moral relativism, which is required to justify the demos empty policies and politics.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
So basically you believe rights and laws come from a place that allow people to get along with eachother. Rights and laws are there so communities can funciton in an orderly way. So if in certain societies, if female circumscission, or throwing widows into their late husband's funeral pyre help those societies to function in an orderly and peaceful manner, then we cannot critisize them? I believe such activities are a violation of the universal moral code and are wrong, no matter what practical application, or rational behind such customs.

I also believe that almost everyone on this board agrees with that however it will be interesting to see who admits to it.

I'll go out on a limb and admit it. I don't think Ty will now, but eventually he will redeem himself.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
If I may, here is a small fragment of it:

"All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalieable rights, among these being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

2. Interesting that the endowment comes from the Creator. Intelligent design indeed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not sure how this Heaven and Hell thing works but I do have a small request. I would like to go wherever I get to:

Spend an eternity with:

Aristotle, Plato, Ghandi, Da Vinci, Einstein, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Phyllis Diller, Galileo, the Cathars and Andy Kaufman.

And do not spend an eternity with:

Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jerry Fallwell, Dr. Dobson, Tammy Faye Baker, John Ashcroft and any employee of the Spanish Inquisition.

So whatever that location is (Heaven or Hell), I want to go there.

If this board doesn't pick up in quality right quick, I will start spending time with Tucker Max.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am not sure how this Heaven and Hell thing works but I do have a small request. I would like to go wherever I get to:

Spend an eternity with:

Aristotle, Plato, Ghandi, Da Vinci, Einstein, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Phyllis Diller, Galileo, the Cathars and Andy Kaufman.

And do not spend an eternity with:

Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Jerry Fallwell, Dr. Dobson, Tammy Faye Baker, John Ashcroft and any employee of the Spanish Inquisition.

So whatever that location is (Heaven or Hell), I want to go there.

I more or less agree, although put Hillary and her ideological pals Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Marx and the RedChinese on the list of people i don't want to spend an eternity with.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If this board doesn't pick up in quality right quick, I will start spending ime with Tucker Max.

To be honest I have already begun my permanent and exclusive move to limiting my cyber-presence to the DU and Tucker Max. The only reason I still post here is because hillary.org shut down its message boards to focus its energy on her 08 Pres run and that freed up a half hour of my day.