Author |
Topic: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics (Read 86223 times) |
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
  
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #375 on: Nov 12th, 2008, 6:59pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I still don't get it. The following sentences seem to say that you can go in different directions... based on the same sign, i.e. (human) comprehension. But, I'm guessing that the bottom line is that the direction is different only in terms of mere human understanding; in terms of the "bigger picture" of God's plan for your life, it's not different. It's not whether it's "orphans or widows" that's the point. It's the "helping". If I'm right, then I guess I do get the rhetoric. But, I know that it doesn't prove anything unique to Christianity. Christianity doesn't corner the market on such "signs", i.e. understanding.
I digress... What about the sign earlier this year that said, "Help out Steg"? 
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06, '21, '24
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 611
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #378 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 12:08am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 11th, 2008, 3:18pm, sk wrote:
Your use of the word "fact" is slightly out of whack here. Yes, Obama voted against the 1997 federal bill banning partial and late term abortions. You dont say, or maybe what you dont know is, why he voted that way.
It was for several reasons.
1. There was no provision within the bill to protect the health of the mother. Meaning, if a womans health was at risk carrying a baby to term, she could not choose her own health over that of the fetus.
2. Partial birth and late term bans could be, and should be governed at the state level.
|
|
These reasons are flawed.
Regarding reason #1, by "woman's health" is meant such things as depression, emotional stability, etc., NOT life and death situations. The bill, as originally proposed, included a provision allowing for partial-birth abortions if it was necessary to save the mother's life. The infamous "health exception" would have allowed partial birth abortions not only when the mother's life was threatened but also when other, non life-threatening adverse health consequences would have followed.
Regarding reason #2, I think you're misunderstanding Obama's quote on this subject. He said "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that." There's no indication here that Obama opposed the partial-birth abortion ban because it made a federal law out of what should be a state issue. In fact, he seems to be using the word "state" as equivalent to "national government," not as contradistinguished from federal government, as you are interpreting it. Besides, since when has Obama been in favor of state's rights? I'm sorry, but when you interpret such an extreme leftist and supporter of centralized government as claiming he opposes a law because it should be left up to the states, not the federal government, I tend not to believe your interpretation.
But these reasons you give are ultimately irrelevant. He believes partial-birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Period.
on Nov 11th, 2008, 3:18pm, sk wrote:
Thats twisted! He said that he would not want his daughters to be punished by being force to carry a crisis pregnacy to term. By crisis pregnacy, I hope you understand, he's refering to rape.
|
|
Completely false. Watch the video: Obama says "If they [his daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." There is no mention of "crisis pregnancy," only of "making a mistake." In fact, the context is sex education (abstinence and contraception), not rape. Your point here is COMPLETELY false and deceitful.
[By the way, "crisis pregnancy" does NOT refer merely to rape. It refers to any pregnancy that is unwanted, whether because of financial or emotional reasons (or others).]
on Nov 11th, 2008, 3:18pm, sk wrote:
True! It would be illegal to implant a manufactured embryo. Because of the genetic possibilities I dont think that would be a good idea. Can you say "Cloning". How many huge footed Michael Phelps babies do we need running around here.
|
|
The reason is irrelevant: he wants to create thousands upon thousands (or is it more?) of human embryos and he wants to make it a crime to bring any one of them to its normal, natural completion through implantation. Besides, what "genetic possibilities" make implantation such a bad idea? It would be easy enough to mandate what kind of embryos are produced so that you don't have this "market demand" for "the perfect baby": just don't CREATE perfect embryos.
on Nov 11th, 2008, 3:18pm, sk wrote:
Seriously, there are thousands of frozen embryos that are discarded each year as infertile couples find alteratives. We have 400000 embryo's frozen in perminate storage now that will go unused. Millions of people are dying slowly from diseases such as ALS, Altzhiemers, spinal cord injuries, diseases of the blood, ect, that stem cell research shows great promise. We have to find moral middle ground here. We owe it to those who are suffering.
|
|
Irrelevant. That is to say, you're not answering my objection. When I state that Obama is in favor of destroying innocent human life, you have to address my argument. Saying "But doing so will help us find cures for diseases" isn't a real response to my original argument. It's like someone objecting to Hitler that he is intentionally murdering thousands of innocent Jews, Christians, and others, and Hitler responding "But it will help us achieve our national goals." In both cases, one is justifying intrinsically evil and brutal actions for the sake of some better good - it just so happens that we today think our reasons are better than Hitler's.
We owe it to those who are suffering to kill those who are innocent?
You describe human beings as "unused," just as a slave owner would have described a slave who was murdered before he was put to work as "unused." Sick.
The bullsh** sentimentality that is so often used to justify killing human life - "we owe it to those who suffer," "so many people are dying from diseases," "the woman has a right over her own body," "the woman will be caused great emotional distress" - is disgusting. Let's face the facts. Such people want to kill the youngest, most innocent human beings so that those who actually HAVE a say in the matter can extend and/or improve THEIR lives. The same reasoning would favor someone who is sick killing someone who is healthy and rich so he could use his victim's money to ease his own illness and extend his own life.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Assistant Coach
# 657
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 56
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #379 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 13th, 2008, 12:08am, T-Rave wrote:
These reasons are flawed.
Regarding reason #1, by "woman's health" is meant such things as depression, emotional stability, etc., NOT life and death situations. The bill, as originally proposed, included a provision allowing for partial-birth abortions if it was necessary to save the mother's life. The infamous "health exception" would have allowed partial birth abortions not only when the mother's life was threatened but also when other, non life-threatening adverse health consequences would have followed.
|
|
Here is a direct Quote from Obama.
I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that mental distress qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
Washington Post
on Nov 13th, 2008, 12:08am, T-Rave wrote:
Regarding reason #2, I think you're misunderstanding Obama's quote on this subject. He said "On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that." There's no indication here that Obama opposed the partial-birth abortion ban because it made a federal law out of what should be a state issue. In fact, he seems to be using the word "state" as equivalent to "national government," not as contradistinguished from federal government, as you are interpreting it. Besides, since when has Obama been in favor of state's rights? I'm sorry, but when you interpret such an extreme leftist and supporter of centralized government as claiming he opposes a law because it should be left up to the states, not the federal government, I tend not to believe your interpretation.
But these reasons you give are ultimately irrelevant. He believes partial-birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure. Period. |
|
If you look at the Obama quote above you will find
You removed the letter "S' off the word State and changed the meaning of the sentance.
He also said this during the South Carolina Primary Debate.
I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 12:08am, T-Rave wrote:
Completely false. Watch the video: Obama says "If they [his daughters] make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." There is no mention of "crisis pregnancy," only of "making a mistake." In fact, the context is sex education (abstinence and contraception), not rape. Your point here is COMPLETELY false and deceitful.
[By the way, "crisis pregnancy" does NOT refer merely to rape. It refers to any pregnancy that is unwanted, whether because of financial or emotional reasons (or others).] |
|
You are correct. I didnt check, nor consider the source I read that quote from. It was Freedompress. Comparitively speaking, they contort many qoutes to make their point. I parrotted those. Im Sorry.
on Nov 8th, 2008, 12:03am, T-Rave wrote:
Here's the catch: under Obama's bill, it would be a federal crime for a women to attempt to implant one of these embryos in her womb and carry it to term. |
|
Can you give me a Bill number. Can you site a source. I have no idea what you are talking about. Now I will guess at what you mean.
"Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.
From- Ontheissues.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 12:08am, T-Rave wrote:
When I state that Obama is in favor of destroying innocent human life, you have to address my argument. Saying "But doing so will help us find cures for diseases" |
|
Theres the rub, right there. No question that the embryo is human life. If thats the case , then how can we justify the thousands of embryos we store frozen for families who hope to one day produce a child. Typically 10 to 12 eggs are fertilized to make embryo's, yet only 3 are returned to the womb. This leaves 7 to be distroyed or stored indefinatly. Are we against In Vetro too!
With this logic:
We can kill to make lives seems no better than killing to save lives.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 12:08am, T-Rave wrote:
The bullsh** sentimentality that is so often used to justify killing human life - "we owe it to those who suffer," "so many people are dying from diseases," "the woman has a right over her own body," "the woman will be caused great emotional distress" - is disgusting. Let's face the facts. Such people want to kill the youngest, most innocent human beings so that those who actually HAVE a say in the matter can extend and/or improve THEIR lives. The same reasoning would favor someone who is sick killing someone who is healthy and rich so he could use his victim's money to ease his own illness and extend his own life. |
|
T-Rave, I understand the positions. I was responsible for a crisis pregnancy when I was young. Probably 18. I was there the day the baby was born. The baby's mother held him for about 10 minutes. Then the nurse handed him to me. She introduced us and then snached him away, off to his new adoptive parents. It was sad for us, but it was far better than the alternative.
I was greatful to be able to make a choice based upon my beliefs and my faiths, and not those of others who feel that they hold the higher moral value. My choice.
 | I DIGRESS...
Government should not force or legislate moral values upon its people. But when and if Government decides that it does then like it or not, right after abortion come gun control. |
|
|  |
Again, Back to my original stand. Nobody is Pro-Abortion. Not me. Not the president elect. Pro-abortion is a term used to promote your agenda. Shock and awe. I will argue to protect my family's right to make a choice based upon my moral values. My right to choose.
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 13th, 2008, 11:41am by sk » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06, '21, '24
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 611
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #380 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 1:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am, sk wrote:
Here is a direct Quote from Obama.
I have repeatedly said that I think it's entirely appropriate for states to restrict or even prohibit late-term abortions as long as there is a strict, well-defined exception for the health of the mother. Now, I don't think that mental distress qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term. Otherwise, as long as there is such a medical exception in place, I think we can prohibit late-term abortions.
Washington Post
If you look at the Obama quote above you will find
You removed the letter "S' off the word State and changed the meaning of the sentance.
He also said this during the South Carolina Primary Debate.
I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy. And I think that's where most Americans are. Now, when you describe a specific procedure that accounts for less than 1% of the abortions that take place, then naturally, people get concerned, and I think legitimately so. But the broader issue here is: Do women have the right to make these profoundly difficult decisions? And I trust them to do it.
|
|
Fair enough. My point still stands, however: Obama believes partial-birth abortion is a legitimate medical procedure.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am, sk wrote:
Can you give me a Bill number. Can you site a source. I have no idea what you are talking about. Now I will guess at what you mean.
"Obama introduced legislation in the Illinois Senate to ensure that only those embryos that would otherwise be discarded could be used and that donors would have to provide written consent for the use of the embryos.
From- Ontheissues.
|
|
I don't have the bill number off the top of my head. I'll have to look it up. I don't think the quote you provided refers to the bill I'm talking about.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am, sk wrote:
Theres the rub, right there. No question that the embryo is human life. If thats the case , then how can we justify the thousands of embryos we store frozen for families who hope to one day produce a child. Typically 10 to 12 eggs are fertilized to make embryo's, yet only 3 are returned to the womb. This leaves 7 to be distroyed or stored indefinatly. Are we against In Vetro too!
|
|
Yes, I'm against in vitro fertilization, in part for the reasons you stated: it requires freezing and eventually killing human beings.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am, sk wrote:
With this logic:
We can kill to make lives seems no better than killing to save lives.
|
|
It's morally reprehensible to kill in order to make lives. It's morally reprehensible to kill in order to save lives. Both are morally offensive, reprehensible, and evil.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am, sk wrote:
T-Rave, I understand the positions. I was responsible for a crisis pregnancy when I was young. Probably 18. I was there the day the baby was born. The baby's mother held him for about 10 minutes. Then the nurse handed him to me. She introduced us and then snached him away, off to his new adoptive parents. It was sad for us, but it was far better than the alternative.
I was greatful to be able to make a choice based upon my beliefs and my faiths, and not those of others who feel that they hold the higher moral value. My choice.
|
|
I honor your decision here. It was honorable taking the right path. But look at your logic: Is it ok to let someone make HIS OWN choice by killing a policeman to avoid being arrested? Choice is not the issue here - you can't choose to murder someone.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am, sk wrote:
| I DIGRESS...
Government should not force or legislate moral values upon its people. But when and if Government decides that it does then like it or not, right after abortion come gun control. |
|
| |
Again, Back to my original stand. Nobody is Pro-Abortion. Not me. Not the president elect. Pro-abortion is a term used to promote your agenda. Shock and awe. I will argue to protect my family's right to make a choice based upon my moral values. My right to choose.
|
|
Again, there is NO right to choose when it comes to determining another human being's living or dying.
Government SHOULD and DOES force/legislate moral values upon its people. There are laws against murder, robbery, rape, incest, fraud, etc. This is legislating morality. Abortion falls under murder, which the government DOES legislate against. Gun control is not the same thing as murder: it's not wrong to own guns, it is wrong to murder, rob, rape, commit fraud, etc. You're confusing two completely different issues here.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #381 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 2:55pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I just want to comment on one very small, but not insignificant point in sk's post. I do want and plan to comment, actually fairly briefly,  I hope,  on the issue of ("legislating") morality in America (but I got to write a "real" paper today,  so I'm just a bit strapped for time  ). Although, I think yous should be able to figure out what I probably have to say on the issue by reviewing and...  relevant posts of mine on this, the "Philosophy Corner" and "Book Club" threads (in fact, I think I'll throw a quick little nugget up on the "Philosophy Corner" thread right now that's inspired by discussions here). However, I do think Rave has fielded the ball, initially, superbly. I would only want to very briefly right now add this: that the term "legislate morality" is basically just as much a political hyperbolism as "pro-abortion". So, if one is going to critique another's political hyperbolisms, one should make sure to reflect that back on him- or herself lest that lack of self-reflection functions as an impediment to advancing the discussion. But, I digress...
on Nov 13th, 2008, 11:15am, sk wrote:If you look at the Obama quote above you will find
You removed the letter "S" off the word State and changed the meaning of the sentance. |
|
I'm pretty sure a capital "S" would actually make the sentence mean the national or federal government, which supports Rave's position, not yours, sk. The meaning doesn't hinge so much on the "s" as it does the definite article "the". "The State", with the "the", in this (non-intrastate) context, to me quite clearly means the Federal Government. Now, mind you, there is an "s" that would really make a difference, the pluralizing "s". To clearly communicate the 50 united states, it should read "the states" or, even better yet for the particular sentence under the microscope, simply "states" minus the definite article. And, then again, maybe that's the point. That's what politicians do. They intentionally and calculatingly don't speak clearly. So, maybe we shouldn't take their specific words all too seriously and literally and focus on the "bigger picture" (that's precisely what I've done when forming my take on Barack Obama '08) (of course, that's a skill in and of itself,... the education of which I've tried to, in an immanental way, facilitate via this site). And, mind you, I'm not necessarily criticizing all the double-talk. I think it's the nature of the beast (at least in today's day and age). But, whatever, these are all hills I'm not willing to die on. My only point was to (instructively, usefully and constructively, helpfully) point out that sk's little point there actually helped Rave's position rather than his own, at least as I saw it.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Assistant Coach
# 657
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 56
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #382 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 3:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 13th, 2008, 1:43pm, T-Rave wrote:
It's morally reprehensible to kill in order to make lives. It's morally reprehensible to kill in order to save lives. Both are morally offensive, reprehensible, and evil.
|
|
That begs the question
Can of worms number 1 , T-Rave. How do you feel about the US involvement in civilian casualties in the shock and Awe blanket bombing of Bagdad?
on Nov 13th, 2008, 1:43pm, T-Rave wrote:
Again, there is NO right to choose when it comes to determining another human being's living or dying.
|
|
Can of worms number 2. How do you feel about the death penalty?
on Nov 13th, 2008, 1:43pm, T-Rave wrote:
Gun control is not the same thing as murder: it's not wrong to own guns, it is wrong to murder, rob, rape, commit fraud, etc. You're confusing two completely different issues here.
|
|
Look up "Urban Assault Rifle". Arent Companies making a profit selling guns to civilians that are used to kill people responsible? Isnt it the same as the bartender who goes to jail because he serves one to many to the guy who runs over the innocent kid on the sidewalk?
I have never commited a felony. Therefore I could go to Don's Guns and buy an AK 47. But why would I want it? The only advantage it gives me is when I need to hit a target from a moving vehicle. Am I in favor of gun control? Absolutely!
I am not in favor of abortion, yet I do not want government to limit my freedom of choice, yet I am in favor of gun control. What kind of an idiot are you guys dealing with here?
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 13th, 2008, 4:43pm by sk » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #383 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 4:32pm » |
Quote Modify
|
| I DIGRESS...
on Nov 13th, 2008, 3:43pm, sk wrote:| That begs the question... |
|
Not that it speaks to the substance of your point, sk, but, for future reference, "to beg the question" does not, as it has erroneously come to mean in lay vernacular, mean "to prompt a further question", "makes me wonder" or "makes me curious about what your answer to this (other) question will be" or something like that. In fact, it's meaning is quite the opposite. It's reflexive back on the question itself. It's like someone saying that Neptune, god of the seas, is responsible for the tides, i.e. explaining away the tides by way of the god of the seas Neptune. Problem, who is this Neptune guy? The explanation itself "begs the question" of the existence of this god of the seas Neptune. That's begging the question. (Did I do that definition justice, T?) |
|
| |
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06, '21, '24
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 611
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #386 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 5:08pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Well said, Steg. I think your characterization of begging the question was spot-on. 
on Nov 13th, 2008, 3:43pm, sk wrote:
That begs the question
Can of worms number 1 , T-Rave. How do you feel about the US involvement in civilian casualties in the shock and Awe blanket bombing of Bagdad?
|
|
Here's the deal. A justified war is one of self-defense. Therefore it does not fall in the category of murder.
The problem of collateral damage is indeed difficult. Here's a solution: if one is fighting a war, one intends to destroy the opposing army. If in so doing one inadvertently kills civilians, without intending to, it's not morally reprehensible. The problem REALLY gets tricky when the opposing army surrounds itself with civilians in order to make it more difficult (as Hezbollah did, and presumably, in this case, as the Iraqis did). Then it's a question of prudence: is the good attained (victory and the end of the war) of more "weight" than the evil that follows as a consequence (civilians killed)? To be a moral action, of course, the bombing can't INTENTIONALLY target civilians as such.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 3:43pm, sk wrote:
Can of worms number 2. How do you feel about the death penalty?
|
|
The same way I do about war: if it's justified self-defense, go ahead. In fact, sometimes both war and the death penalty are not only morally justified but morally necessary.
If a criminal is such a threat to society that his existence cannot be tolerated without grave threat to that society, the death penalty can in fact be the best option. Of course, in our day and age, what with much more secure prisons, it's less and less likely that the death penalty is necessary, but I can see it in some cases still being necessary (perhaps in Saddam's case or in Osama bin Laden's, if we ever catch him).
on Nov 13th, 2008, 3:43pm, sk wrote:
Look up "Urban Assault Rifle". Arent Companies making a profit selling guns to civilians that are used to kill people responsible? Isnt it the same as the bartender who goes to jail because he serves one to many to the guy who runs over the innocent kid on the sidewalk?
I have never commited a felony. Therefore I could go to Don's Guns and buy an AK 47. But why would I want it? The only advantage it gives me is when I need to hit a target from a moving vehicle. Am I in favor of gun control? Absolutely!
|
|
Again, it's apples and oranges. You can never justify murder, rape, etc., but you CAN justify owning a gun. Now, like you, I am in favor of government control over CERTAIN TYPES of guns. But this is not of the same moral imperative as murder, rape, fraud, etc.: the latter are intrinsically wrong, whereas owning a gun is NOT.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #387 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 7:39pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 13th, 2008, 5:08pm, T-Rave wrote:| Well said, Steg. I think your characterization of begging the question was spot-on. |
|
...
Let me preface that I don't really like this "framing" of morality. As could be expected from my philosophical emphasis on subjectivity and so forth, morality in general is not to be looked upon merely as reactive or, to pigeon-hole it even more, corrective or as a matter merely of punitive justice. To frame it merely in terms of correction, no less corrections, is not to do it justice. True morality, first and foremost, is proactive, not reactive. Even though the word "morality" is being thrown around here, what is really being discussed is the morality of matters where things have already gone awry, the morality of punishment, the morality of reactions to circumstances where people have already made a mess by prior poor judgment, the morality of playing clean-up. I'm actually not even sure if this is morality anymore though that's what it's conventionally considered to be. This is just debating how to best "clean things up". I don't think "morality", per se, should be denegrated thusly.
That having been said...
Quote:Here's the deal. A justified war is one of self-defense. Therefore it does not fall in the category of murder.
The problem of collateral damage is indeed difficult. Here's a solution: if one is fighting a war, one intends to destroy the opposing army. If in so doing one inadvertently kills civilians, without intending to, it's not morally reprehensible. The problem REALLY gets tricky when the opposing army surrounds itself with civilians in order to make it more difficult (as Hezbollah did, and presumably, in this case, as the Iraqis did). Then it's a question of prudence: is the good attained (victory and the end of the war) of more "weight" than the evil that follows as a consequence (civilians killed)? To be a moral action, of course, the bombing can't INTENTIONALLY target civilians as such. |
|
... (to continue that last sentence of T's there) like as happened on 9/11!
That said, T, first, what about situations where civilians are targeted as such, though perhaps not desirably so, sheerly because the size and scope of an attack like, say, a bombing, which, though aiming at a specific military target, is going to take out a nearby community because of, say, the size of the bomb? (I set up that hypothetical really only to provide a slightly more justifiable situation than the next real-world example.) Worse yet (and I ask this of you too, sk), what about a situation like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where, from what I know, civilians were targeted as such and regrettably, desirably so? But, hey, most don't argue with the ultimate result, the much-needed hastening of the end of WWII.
...
Now, the answers to those questions aside, the meta-commentary here is that you can't really argue "issues" with other "issues" even though it is a knee-jerk sensibility we all have a tendency to manifest. I've been down this road with sk before, I know. It is not a legitimate argumentational tactic to argue issues with issues. It just serves to muddy the waters more than anything and gets us away from probing a particular matter more deeply. We could sit here all day going "what about this issue?", "what about that issue?" with one another and get nowhere. It's because, even though the situations seem similar or perhaps even the same, they are in fact DIFFERENT. So, we're really comparing apples and oranges. Even though they seem to be connected, it's fallacious to think that one's position on abortion must in any way be related to one's position on, say, the death penalty, no less be specifically relative to it, and no less, this abortion scenario with that one and that death penalty situation with this one, and, again, no less this abortion scenario with that death penalty situation. First, there is the (postmodern) qualm with the principle of non-contradiction and, thus, the value of consistency (not that I share said qualm, but it looms whether or not I like it). Second, everything is a matter of particular(izing) circumstances, which will have us chasing our inductive tails all the live-long day (this is why hypotheticals can serve more to conflate rather than clarify matters because they highlight the similarity of an issue while ignoring the reality of difference). Thirdly, as I've hammered in here, they're different issues, period. They do share somewhat of a common thread, but that common thread is not a valid identity claim. Similarities, no matter the number and degree of similarity, do not make for sameness. You can't just keep hitting someone up with issue after issue thinking that it advances (any of) the discussion(s on any of the issues)... unless you can prove or, at least, argue how the two issues are similar enough to merit consistency of response. Without, at least, an argument for that, no less proof, it's not a worthwhile enterprise. I mean, when someone does that to me, I want them to show me the connection that justifies the comparison first before I will even entertain the question (that is, unless I can expedite matters with the same positive result by way of just responding to the question directly). But, again, even then it is better discussed circumstantially rather than hypothetically. Comparing actual situations in real life is very difficult as we all know. Hypothetically comparing issues, though people do it all the time, is downright impossible and a waste of our good time.
But, mind you, none of this is about morality. We're just discussing positions on difficult and challenging issues of our times. Morality is what you were confronted with, sk, when you had to respond to that "crisis" pregnancy. Morality, for sure, transcends law,... which will provide me with a nice segue when I get around to making that other post regarding "legislating" morality, which I will eventually get to. But, legislators do have to go about protecting peoples', first, "freedom froms" and then, second, "freedom tos".
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #389 on: Nov 13th, 2008, 9:43pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Where the rubber meets the road on the critique of "argumentation" techniques, sk, is that poor technique can lead you to draw the kind of conclusion you just did...
on Nov 13th, 2008, 8:27pm, sk wrote:Bullshit to both of you. You cant make this statement:
And then you said this
I really dont think you can have it both ways. |
|
The reality is, objectively (no less relativistically) speaking, you can... whether YOU like it or not, sk.
I'm sorry we, I, whoever here doesn't agree with your dominoes set-up. But, you GOT TO know it's YOUR dominoes set-up, not one (necessarily) confirmed by an objective appeal to things as they are.
But, seriously, I am sorry for hurting your feelings with this.  If you just take it for what it is and take it in, sk, this whole exercise helps you improve your argument and perhaps your position too. I mean no one is being nasty to you here, dude. In argumentation, facts are one front; technique and reasoning is another. It's all fair game, though, and you can't be thin-skinned about any of it, especially, again, when the people you are arguing with are NOT being nasty about it at all. Hell, I personally think it's an opportunity, man. With Ravenous T and me at least, you are rapping with two guys who have made great sacrifices to devote their lives to mastering that technique and reasoning side of things and, in fact, make it their livelihoods vis-a-vis working toward their doctorates in Philosophy, and Philosophy and Religion, respectively. In the least, you got to know that's the playing field here.
Anyway, again, I didn't curse you out, though, in any of this, sk, as you did me, us. I guess I'll just take your apology for that as implicit ... (as, again, I'm the bad guy around here who doesn't apologize or thank anybody for anything  ).
Quote:| Anyway, this was fun. I was enjoying the whatever this was. At least up until it became another forum where my literary techniques and weaknesses became as always an issue for display. It kind of sucked the joy out of it for me. I'm gonna go back over here and ride the crickets for a while. |
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06, '21, '24
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 611
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #390 on: Nov 14th, 2008, 12:33am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 13th, 2008, 8:27pm, sk wrote:
Bullshit to both of you. You cant make this statement:
And then you said this
I really dont think you can have it both ways.
|
|
Sk, you're not being fair. You're not really paying attention to what I said. It IS morally reprehensible to kill in order to save lives. Justified war is not murder, however; it's self-defense. Embryonic stem cell research is NOT self-defense (we're not threatened by the human embryos) so it's murder. You can't possibly think the two situations are the same.
As far as my comment about "prudential decisions," you failed to note my clarifying remark in the original post, that INTENTIONALLY killing civilians (directing your aggression at them specifically) is never justified. The only thing that is (sometimes) justifiable is what we euphemistically call "collateral damage," in which you intend to kill the aggressors (military personnel) but in so doing also cause the death of civilians.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 8:27pm, sk wrote:
Anyway, this was fun. I was enjoying the whatever this was. At least up until it became another forum where my literary techniques and weaknesses became as always an issue for display. It kind of sucked the joy out of it for me. I'm gonna go back over here and ride the crickets for a while.
|
|
I'm sorry this is the case. But you have to admit, sk, this at the very least SOUNDS like a cop-out, especially since you're throwing one last punch and then "stopping the match." Literary techniques and weaknesses aren't the point; besides, as Steg said, having such discussions with people who are better at such things is an opportunity to learn (just like Steg and I having discussions with scholars is an opportunity to learn). We all have opportunities to learn -- and, yes, such opportunities often involve ourselves looking less polished or even somewhat bumbling. You just gotta swallow it (no comments, Steg ).
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Fantasy Field General
GBRFLer
Champ - '06, '21, '24
# 414
Semper Philosophans
Posts: 611
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #391 on: Nov 14th, 2008, 12:45am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Nov 13th, 2008, 7:39pm, StegRock wrote:
Let me preface that I don't really like this "framing" of morality. As could be expected from my philosophical emphasis on subjectivity and so forth, morality in general is not to be looked upon merely as reactive or, to pigeon-hole it even more, corrective or as a matter merely of punitive justice. To frame it merely in terms of correction, no less corrections, is not to do it justice. True morality, first and foremost, is proactive, not reactive. Even though the word "morality" is being thrown around here, what is really being discussed is the morality of matters where things have already gone awry, the morality of punishment, the morality of reactions to circumstances where people have already made a mess by prior poor judgment, the morality of playing clean-up. I'm actually not even sure if this is morality anymore though that's what it's conventionally considered to be. This is just debating how to best "clean things up". I don't think "morality", per se, should be denegrated thusly.
. . .
But, legislators do have to go about protecting peoples', first, "freedom froms" and then, second, "freedom tos".
|
|
I agree with most of the substance of this point. True morality starts from within and proceeds outward into action. Acting "morally" from fear of punishment or desire of gain isn't true morality. However, as Aristotle notes, political society uses the law in order to bring its citizens to their proper end, i.e., happiness, which requires moral action. Realizing that argumentation rarely compels inward moral conversion and action, Aristotle points out that the law uses fear of punishment and/or the promise of glory and honor in order to mold at least the EXTERNAL actions of its citizens, hoping that over time, such training will have the effect of forming inner habits so that true morality can be established.
Of course, this isn't the modern understanding of the purpose of law. Ever since Locke, and Hobbes, the West has tended to understand the purpose of law as merely defensive and material-minded: law prevents others from infringing on my rights, it protects my life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, and it serves ultimately to make orderly and non-violent community living possible. This is a striking departure (and degeneration) from Aristotle's understanding of law as positive, as guiding citizens along the path to virtue and, thence, happiness.
on Nov 13th, 2008, 7:39pm, StegRock wrote:
That said, T, first, what about situations where civilians are targeted as such, though perhaps not desirably so, sheerly because the size and scope of an attack like, say, a bombing, which, though aiming at a specific military target, is going to take out a nearby community because of, say, the size of the bomb? (I set up that hypothetical really only to provide a slightly more justifiable situation than the next real-world example.) Worse yet (and I ask this of you too, sk), what about a situation like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where, from what I know, civilians were targeted as such and regrettably, desirably so? But, hey, most don't argue with the ultimate result, the much-needed hastening of the end of WWII.
|
|
If a bombing is aimed at a military target, then the citizens can't be said to be targeted as such. The military target is targeted, the nearby civilian population merely receives the effect of this targeting. It may sound like splitting hairs, but I'm convinced it's not.
This view I'm espousing, of course, makes it difficult to see how using nuclear/atomic bombs is ever justified, since they are not intended to merely destroy a confined, precise target, but rather are intended to "shock and awe" with their built-in, large target zone.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Assistant Coach
# 657
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 56
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #392 on: Nov 14th, 2008, 7:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
Quote:| It's all fair game, though, and you can't be thin-skinned about any of it, especially, again, when the people you are arguing with are NOT being nasty about it at all. |
|
True!
Quote:I'm sorry this is the case. But you have to admit, sk, this at the very least SOUNDS like a cop-out, especially since you're throwing one last punch and then "stopping the match." Literary techniques and weaknesses aren't the point; besides, as Steg said, having such discussions with people who are better at such things is an opportunity to learn (just like Steg and I having discussions with scholars is an opportunity to learn). We all have opportunities to learn -- and, yes, such opportunities often involve ourselves looking less polished or even somewhat bumbling. You just gotta swallow it (no comments, Steg ).
|
|
Did you just call me, Bumbling? Thats hitting after the bell!
Quote:| Anyway, again, I didn't curse you out, though, in any of this, sk, as you did me, us. I guess I'll just take your apology for that as implicit ... (as, again, I'm the bad guy around here who doesn't apologize or thank anybody for anything ). |
|
OMG  First off, Ive been around long eneough for you to know that "Bullshit to both of you" is not "Cursing you out"  . All kiding aside, I didn't mean to offend .
Listen, This topic started out as my objection to the reference of the term "Pro-Abortion". As I dont think anyone really is.Then it snowballed into something more uncomfortable for me. Purhaps by my own doing. But uncomfortable none the less.
Now I have to go back over here. I just found out that all the crickets Ive been riding are pregnant. Talk about a crisis! 
|
| « Last Edit: Nov 14th, 2008, 7:39am by sk » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #393 on: Nov 28th, 2008, 2:41pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Just curious... By this...
on Nov 12th, 2008, 9:59pm, MordecaiCourage wrote:  It does for me |
|
... which of the following do you mean, MC...???
"It does for me personally,"
OR
"It does according to me."
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
MordecaiCourage
Guest
Back to top
|
Personally of course!!
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #395 on: Nov 28th, 2008, 8:04pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Nice, MC...  That was the hopeful answer. That is the hopeful answer.
In terms of (comparative philosophy or interfaith or even "political" or international) dialogue, each is problematic, of course, but...
The other one...
on Nov 28th, 2008, 2:41pm, StegRock wrote:| "It does according to me." |
|
... is ultimately (potentially) open, but conventionally only one-way [i.e. not an egress (to anything "Other")].
This one...
Quote:| "It does for me personally(.)" |
|
... is ultimately closed, but conventionally (potentially) open [to the move I term the "suspension of metaphysics" (which, mind you, has nothing to do with religious conversion,... quite the contrary)].
It is in that way that I mean hopeful. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
|
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #396 on: Dec 18th, 2008, 10:12pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Oct 12th, 2008, 2:52pm, StegRock wrote:| Now feel free to correct me if I am getting this wrong, guys and gals, as regards the current economic crisis we are enduring, but, as I am understanding it, there is equal blame to be placed at the feet of both Republican deregulation philosophy as there is Democrat welfare philosophy. HOWEVER, it seems to me that the Democrats actually took advantage of the Republican penchant for deregulation to advance their welfare agenda in the housing sector via (Clinton-appointed higher-ups in) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and block voting of congressional Democrats on the Securities Commission (or whatever it's called). |
|
Did anybody catch on Hannity and Colmes tonight the debate on the sub-prime mortage crisis between Sean Hannity and Rebecca Diamond ( , by the way)? Why does it take the political "experts" so long to catch up to the Steg?
...
Incidentally, something I've been meaning to announce for some time,... it's official... The political pundit whose politics I most share, I think fairly far-and-away, is Dennis Miller. 
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #397 on: Mar 3rd, 2009, 8:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
While I think that conservatives and Republicans and Americans in general are (in the) right to scrutinize  the contents of the Obama stimulus package or, rather, the lack of scrutiny and knowledge of the contents of the package on the part of Congress and probably Obama himself,  I do think America is suffering from a much "bigger picture" predicament, namely free enterprise, on the one hand, versus consumerism/market-fueled greed, on the other.  I do not think that the problem is capitalism writ large or per se. The problem is Americana market/consumer capitalism. Wall Street and the stock market, at least as we've come to know and depend upon them, have got to go. This is where I take it that Obama('s policy) has a point. Localism, more than Wall Street, is what we need. My proposal is,... would be reminiscent of the rugged individualism that America was built upon and made America great, but a contemporary version that better accomodates/responds to the reality of human interconnectedness and interdependence, call it cooperative capitalism from a politico-economic perspective, rugged personalism from an anthro-philosophical perspective. For somewhat of a model, think of what I was trying to do here on "the Gridiron". Anyway, just the...  of a guy on his little fantasy football web site. 
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 3rd, 2009, 9:07pm by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
Philosopher King
of Fantasy Football
Site Administrator
GBRFLer
Champ - '94, '99, '02, '04
I love ''the Gridiron''!
Posts: 19657
Back to top
|
 |
Re: G.T.K.Y.G. - Topic: Politics
« Reply #398 on: Mar 19th, 2009, 3:17am » |
Quote Modify
|
F'n San Francisco...  On the NETWORK news tonight they reported about the anniversary of "George Bush's" commencing the war in Iraq. What we got: death counts, service and civilian, the latter of which looked to me to be an inflated Rosie O'Donnell  type number, and cost, heretofore and estimated. NARY a mention of any of the good that has come out of the effort and NOT a shred of the end-of-the-day good news that it looks like we have finally basically prevailed. At least, Hannity, who I surely have my issues with mind you, doesn't hide the fact that he is in the tank for the Republicans. But, I digress... Maybe it's excusable. After all, Obama is in the state right now. They're all walking around with tingles running up their legs. They just need a little "Bush trash-talk" cherry to top off their orgasm sundaes. I realize... I don't watch FOX News because it is necessarily fair and balanced (not that I agree, but it arguably isn't), but rather because IT ITSELF IS the counterweight to the popular media. 
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 19th, 2009, 5:01am by Stegfucius » |
Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Games
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print
Remove
