The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Who do you think is disagreeing with you, and on what grounds?

I have been ridiculed many times on this board for believing there is a UMC. Penske was critisized many times on this board for using the term UMC.

Even in this thread you refused to acknowledge a UMC, saying that there were only principles.

The discussion of a UMC came up before, and multiple people on this board argued with me at lenght whether or not it exists.

But if you know acknowledge there is a UMC, then I won't have to subjected to comments like "who are we to impose our values on the middle east", "it is crazy to think a democracy can work in the middle east" etc.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
I have been ridiculed many times on this board for believing there is a UMC. Penske was critisized many times on this board for using the term UMC.

Even in this thread you refused to acknowledge a UMC, saying that there were only principles.

The discussion of a UMC came up before, and multiple people on this board argued with me at lenght whether or not it exists.

But if you know acknowledge there is a UMC, then I won't have to subjected to comments like "who are we to impose our values on the middle east", "it is crazy to think a democracy can work in the middle east" etc.

Please cite to where on this board you have been subjected to those comments.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

I mean really, Spanky: "Every time you say something is wrong, you presuppose a UMC or your statement is meaningless."
That is complete horseshit.

S_A_M

That is complete "Horseshit". When you same something is wrong, you are assuming that we both agree what is right or wrong. If you say something is illegal, we can only argue whether something is illegal, if we both agree to the same laws. If there is more than one legal system we are using, then we can't debate the concept of what is illegal. If you are using the Saudi Arabian laws, and I am using the US legal system, something could be illegal and legal at the same time.

If you tell me something is "wrong" or "immoral" the implication is there are set rules to what are right and wrong and that we both are using the same rules. Otherwise what is wrong to you may be right to me. When you are telling me something is immoral or wrong you are assuming there is a moral code that we both have in common.

That is not complicated, and once you think about, it is obvious.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
There is one God and His law applies to everyone. That is not the same as saying that we know what that law is, or that the law is immutable.

If by immutable, you mean it doesn't change. Then yes it is immutable. I never said that under Jewish philosophy we automatically know what it is, but the idea is that we all have a conscience that if we are true to then we can figure out what Gods laws are.

Jewish Scholars have been debating the Code for years, but they all agree that is unchanging, applies in every situation, and is universal.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is complete "Horseshit". When you same something is wrong, you are assuming that we both agree what is right or wrong. If you say something is illegal, we can only argue whether something is illegal, if we both agree to the same laws. If there is more than one legal system we are using, then we can't debate the concept of what is illegal. If you are using the Saudi Arabian laws, and I am using the US legal system, something could be illegal and legal at the same time.

If you tell me something is "wrong" or "immoral" the implication is there are set rules to what are right and wrong and that we both are using the same rules. Otherwise what is wrong to you may be right to me. When you are telling me something is immoral or wrong you are assuming there is a moral code that we both have in common.

That is not complicated, and once you think about, it is obvious.

You assume words like "wrong" and "immoral" have meaning beyond "illegal", but who gives those words this status?

Grasshopper, remember, words are words. Speaking, meaning, and doing are as different from each other as red, blue and yellow.

Someday, perhaps, you shall take the pebble from my hand. But not today.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Are you claiming your crucifixion of Jesus was an accident?

You can try to pass it off in us as often as you like, but it was your ancestors not mine who nailed him up. Even your nazi sympathizer Pope has acknowledged that fact.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) I never said I agree with the commandment. I have said that it is wrong to kill innocent people and there are exceptions to that rule.

2) As far as that commandment goes Jewish Scholars have argued for centuries about where is applies and where it does not. Just like the Constitution gurantees freedom of speech, the courts have ruled that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Jewish scholars have treated this commandment the same, and have debated when exceptions apply.

Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you just said that these things are relative.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
If by immutable, you mean it doesn't change. Then yes it is immutable. I never said that under Jewish philosophy we automatically know what it is, but the idea is that we all have a conscience that if we are true to then we can figure out what Gods laws are.

Jewish Scholars have been debating the Code for years, but they all agree that is unchanging, applies in every situation, and is universal.

You are wrong about this.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Please cite to where on this board you have been subjected to those comments.

Which ones. There have been many comments saying four things

1) Constant references to the UMC and what a stupid idea it is. Such references being made when we are discussing other subjects.

2) Comments directly criticising the UMC when we have been debating is directly (up to this point I think Penske and Hank - and maybe one or two other conservatives are the only other posters who have ever agreed there is a UMC).

3) comments saying that who are we to impose our values on the middle east

4) tying to create a democracy in Iraq or other middle eastern countrys is a bad idea because democracy is not suited for that region.

One, two and four mulitple times. Number three not so much recently. Do I really need to look this stuff up. You think my memory is faulty. Either I live in a complete fantasy world, or looking these up will be as easy as looking for debates on whether the war was a good idea, or whether Bush lied. Although I admit, I have never used the search function and have never looked for old statements so I don't know how easy it is.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You are wrong about this.

That's just wrong.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd swear you just said that these things are relative.

You are really thick. How many times do I have to state the obvious. Complicated does not equal relative.

Relative means that was is right or wrong in one culture may not be rigth in wrong in another culture.

If there is an exception to thou the thou shal not kill rule, that just means the code is complicated not relative.

If the exception is it is OK to kill in self defense, then that rule applies to everyone on the planet. So it is not relative. Of course it is more complicated than that, it is only OK to kill in self defense if killing is the only way to stop harm or serious harm to your person. Does that means it is relative. No that just mean it is complicated.

That rule applies to everyone on the planet.

Now do you get it?

[Cookiepuss]

Originally posted by Spanky
You are really thick. How many times do I have to state the obvious.

This is by far the best fat joke on here in some time.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That's just wrong.

Wrong, yes. Immoral, no.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Which ones. There have been many comments saying four things

1) Constant references to the UMC and what a stupid idea it is. Such references being made when we are discussing other subjects.

2) Comments directly criticising the UMC when we have been debating is directly (up to this point I think Penske and Hank - and maybe one or two other conservatives are the only other posters who have ever agreed there is a UMC).

3) comments saying that who are we to impose our values on the middle east

4) tying to create a democracy in Iraq or other middle eastern countrys is a bad idea because democracy is not suited for that region.

One, two and four mulitple times. Number three not so much recently. Do I really need to look this stuff up. You think my memory is faulty. Either I live in a complete fantasy world, or looking these up will be as easy as looking for debates on whether the war was a good idea, or whether Bush lied. Although I admit, I have never used the search function and have never looked for old statements so I don't know how easy it is.

When have we needed a universal moral code to impose our values on another country?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You can try to pass it off in us as often as you like, but it was your ancestors not mine who nailed him up. Even your nazi sympathizer Pope has acknowledged that fact.

Is Hank Italian? The Italians killed by crucifixtion. If the Jews had killed him (executed him) it would, I believe, have been a beheading. The Jews (specifically Herod) did have John the Babtist killed.

What I do know is that at this time my ancestors were either running around the forests of Northern Europe with bones through their noses, or were slaves of the more civilized people of the mediterranean.

However, is anyone every responsbile for what their ancestors did? I know this concept has been used many times as an excuse to steal property from the Jews, but no one on this board actually believes in group or tribal guilt. Correct?