posted on February 25, 2003 06:16:42 AM new
If you think that mocking an entire group of people is a fine thing to do, please tune into Frontline this Thursday night. It may be an eye opener for you.
posted on February 25, 2003 09:26:42 AM new
Yes it is a fine thing to do when it is our President and his political party, or conservatives. But it is not OK when it is a group you identify with.
The French and Germans started the name calling by calling our President a cowboy, and telling the European countries that agreed with th eUS ill bred and raised.
Unfortunately, the conservatives have been saying for years that the liberal left has a double standard, and they are correct. If it is the left name calling or denegrating a nation it is free speech. If the right does the same thing, it is hateful and damaging speech.
If the left doesn't start playing intellectually honest, they are history.
posted on February 25, 2003 11:35:04 AM new
Colin, I am an American who grew up in a Third World country, surrounded by natives who lived in such abject poverty that all that they owned were loin cloths and maybe a few chickens to eat. It was a Buddhist society and country, not a Christian one. And it was at War and I grew up having passed through battles as a kid. Can you say the same?
>Not for me to judge. I don't wear the long flowing robe. If anyone is judgmental, It would be you.
Aside from the ignorant judgment that you just passed out above . . .
This is where I keep pointing out your particular problem that you are constantly running into on here, Colin. I'm the only one rude enough to stop and take the time to point it out to you; that doesn't make me the only one that feels that way, however.
The problem is one of taking the time to think things through to their logical conclusion. Does a particular moral value have a universal appeal, or is it something provincial? We aren't talking about societies of humans versus those of carbon-based aliens on Jupiter, for instance. We're talking about common values between different societies of humans. Therefore, if you want to discover what constitutes a universal morality to adopt, you have to take the time to figure out what the common values are between all societies. That can take a lot of research and thinking, Colin.
To discover what is a Real Moral or Value and what may be base upon a puff of smoke, one has to either read History and dig through the trenches or they belong to some organized religion that tells their lazy asses what to believe. I have spent over four decades now reading history along with science, religion, politics, military, and philosophy that history is written about. Can you say the same?
At least I've made the honest attempt, Colin, to come to my conclusions. I've discovered just one, honest, universal moral. That moral is: Cause No Harm To Others.
Colin, I don't care what human society that you'll mention, or book of philosophy, or religion; whether in modern times, the past or the future, where that moral doesn't fit. All of our greatest laws are based upon that central idea, as laws that harm others do not stand for long. Our Bill of Rights is a testament to that very virtue. Can you deny this as well, Colin?
One last thing, Colin:
>You don't debate, You state and take offense to any that disagree.
Untrue. I debate where there is HONEST debate, not demagoguery. You can't debate demagoguery, you can only argue and fight over it. That's hardly the same thing, Colin. I take offense at those who use ignorance as their pedestal in life and rail at me for holding the positions in life that I do. I think out my positions carefully and as thoroughly as possible so that I can be right in both my positions and in my thinking. When someone shows me facts to the contrary, or uses skillful logic to make a contrary point, or uses sound reasoning not loaded down with demagoguery, then I'm always willing to change my point of view - something that under those same conditions, you have steadfastly refused to do, Colin. Should I really respect you in the morning for that?
posted on February 25, 2003 11:39:58 AM new
>If it is the left name calling or denegrating a nation it is free speech. If the right does the same thing, it is hateful and damaging speech.
They both do name calling, true. But I think that where the differences lie is one of education and vocabluary. When the left uses labels, they try to be clever and intelligent about it. When the right uses labels, they are out for causing as much pain as possible. The left always thinks that this is a terrible thing to do and the right always laughs at them for being concerned. Go figure!
posted on February 25, 2003 04:17:36 PM new
I didn't realize you were the Dali Lama. I apologize. Maybe I was right on the flowing robe?
I grew up poor, in the slums of Albany, NY.
I've got 50 years of reading (and comprehension) puts me one up.
And just what does your statement have to do with my message? Nothing. You just go off on your own tirade. You don't debate the statement I made you go in a completely different direction. It was about, just what Morale meant to different people. Not to you and you alone.
logic is a first year college course. It's very useful but not the only tool in my box. Common Sense is a very important tool I use too.
I had a friend many years ago that spouted all this logic crap, all summer long. It was his first year of college. He never finished.
I saw him a couple years ago, he looked like hell. His life didn't take too many good turns. We had a couple beers and he started on the logic of crap again. Give me a break.
I didn't ask for your agreement on my statement. I believe I'm right. It's not a statement I made out of anger or ignorance. (I have to believe I'm better educated then You.) LOGIC.
I look at many sides of a situation. not just both sides. When I make a comment it's what I truly believe. It's something I've researched or if not I, state so or say it's my opinion.
If I've upset you I truly apologize. I didn't realize your skin was so thin. Seems I've gotten underneath it. I enjoy a good debate. Of course face to face is always better but this is good to. At least when writing you can research your subject or you should and I can spell check.
Amen,
"When I grow up, I want to be just like me."
Reverend Colin
posted on February 25, 2003 05:05:28 PM new
>"And just what does your statement have to do with my message? Nothing. You just go off on your own tirade. You don't debate the statement I made you go in a completely different direction. It was about, just what Morale meant to different people. Not to you and you alone. "
Colin, did you not make this statement below:
"Your moral ideals may be very different from those in a third world country. May be very different from those in the barrio, the rich, the poor, Catholics, Jews or Muslims just to name a few. This is something you learn as you get older and deal with all kinds of people unless you live a cloistered life. "
Maybe it reads differently to you somehow, but from that I gathered that you were saying that morals may be very different from society to society and you gave some examples of which included third world countries. I told you that I am likely to be in a better position than you to make that judgment, since I grew up in as odd and opposite a country as you have living in your cloistered life in the barrio. That goes to creditability of argument; that the basis of the judgment rests upon a firm foundation. It didn't "get under my skin" -- only stupid comments do that.
> It was about, just what Morale meant to different people. Not to you and you alone.
Morals may differ from person to person, region to region, society to society -- as I said before.
I've been trying to respond to your earlier remarks that "There is no compass for Morality. Everyone has a different idea of what's good and bad." and "Morality is a standard that is set by who?" So when you complain, "You don't debate the statement I made you go in a completely different direction." I don't see how you are able to come to that conclusion. Maybe what you ought to do is to word it directly, simply, and spelled correctly to me and I'll be happy to address whatever it is that you think I should be "debating" about with you.
posted on February 26, 2003 08:38:15 AM new
"Cause No Harm To Others" Is a nice and moral ideal. So is "turn the other cheek", "Do unto others" and a host of aphorisms.
These ideals, would and could be morals if entire populations excepted them as theirs. The world doesn't work that way.
I do my best to cause no harm to others. I believe and practice "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
I don't turn the other cheek if it's something that causes me harm or those around me, Should this happen I'm without compassion or pity, Truly the nightmare of many. Just like most of the people of the world. Maybe even more so here in the US of A.
That's why when and if the war with Iraq begins, the protesters will dwindle.
We will lose good people, there will be collateral deaths and dismemberment. All Hell will break out. The majority of the Americans and their allies will ban together with the morals of a single entity. Without passion or pity.
It may be sad but it's true.
Amen,
I always like to be on the winning side,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 26, 2003 10:33:43 AM new
Even those that practice "harm no others" are still harming others and don't even realize it.
If you drive an automobile, fly in a plane, consume material for vain reasons, such as purchasing new clothes for style, getting a face lift, you are directly or indirectly harming others.
Consuming anything in amounts above what is absolutely necessary is harming others.
Having more than 2 children can be shown to be harming others.
Perhaps what these people mean to say is "harm others in the least amount possible, and in a manner that does not effect my lifestyle".
By the way, heating oil and natural gas prices have went through the roof. A lot of folks that carried signs stating NO WAR FOR OIL will be burning those signs to stay warm and will be complaining to the government about fuel prices in the coming months.
posted on February 26, 2003 10:57:33 AM new
If It was about oil......all we had to do was stop the embargo against Iraq.
Amen,
$1.79 for heating oil last week,
Reverend Colin
posted on February 26, 2003 12:02:24 PM new
>Even those that practice "harm no others" are still harming others and don't even realize it.
REAMOND, you have hit upon a fundamental idea of why nothing is allowed to be perfect in this world. In its extreme sense, you are right, that it is impossible to be completely moral, that you will always be in violation at some point. Therefore comes into play Free Will. Do we Willingly hurt others by driving our cars around? Its not something that we can help, it is unintentional, therefore, it is unavoidable. So, one practices that morality as much as one is able to, knowing that Perfection of anything is not attainable, and yet the effort makes us worthy in the eyes of God.
Can you imagine what this would would be like if Perfection existed other than as an ideal? Can you see to what limitless exhaustion demands could be put on us to acheive that Perfection each and every time that we simply breathe? Say Thanks to your God for not bestowing the Curse of Perfection on us!
posted on February 26, 2003 12:31:08 PM new
If there can be no perfection in practice, then I would posit that there can be no perfect ethical standard either.
posted on February 26, 2003 12:48:18 PM new
and you would also be corrct, REAMOND. I have been complaining for some time to posters on here who keep seeking real perfection in systems that it is not possible for any system to be pefect.
Imagine what it ouwld be like if Perfection were foistered upon us.
You Employer would expect Perfect Performance from you each and every time with no mistakes.
Your Spouce would do the same.
Because Perfection would be possible, our laws would reflect that ideal as reality and the penalty for "willingly not being perfect while driving" would bring on a harsh sentace - the only possible sentance: Death. Since any lesser penalty would not be Perfect, only by dealing out Death for every incursion against Perfection and infraction of the Perfect Law would Perfect Justice Be possible. Therefore, there could be no Compassion in this world, as Perfection would make the world into Black and White and either you live Perfectly or you Die.
I'd say that's a pretty good reason not to expect Perfection from ANY system -- wouldn't you?
posted on February 26, 2003 12:55:15 PM new
>the paradise of perfection; The Garden of Eden went sour when Adam and Eve first sinned.
NTS, I know that Fundamentalist Christians will disagree with me on this, but the story of Adam and Eve is allegorical, if not phylosophical in nature. The Question takes this form: "Imagine if you took the Perfect Environment, created a Man not born of lowly human, but by the very Perfect Hand of God from the dust of the earth - a Perfect Man and made the Perfect Woman from that Perfect Man to be his companion. Would Man still commit Sin?" The Question it asks is: "Is it within Man's very Nature to commmit Sin?" The answer is that women are what gets Man into trouble with God through Sin. Not a nice answer, but the answer that the Western religions came up with long ago.
posted on February 26, 2003 02:30:02 PM new"Is it within Man's very Nature to commmit Sin?" The answer is that women are what gets Man into trouble with God through Sin.
LOL!
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
posted on February 26, 2003 04:08:18 PM new
Yes, it was a historical question. Why do we Sin? I mean, knowing better, WHY do we do it? It was evidently quite suicidal for the Hebrews to slight their god, so why did Man do it? Was it something in the environment, bad genes/breeding, What? So, you have the theoretical scenario of Adam and Eve. There is no Iniquity: Adam was made Pure without any Sin from parents. Adam was created in a Pure Environment made by the very Hand of God. There was, but only one very simple Sin that could be committed, for God had removed all others, so Man would not get confused or easily commit Sin by everyday life, but made it an act of Conscience if he did.
Man did indeed not commit Sin, but he was unhappy because he is lonely without the companionship of women. Therefore, it became necessary to create a Pure Woman from the Pure Man in order to keep this scenario alive. And into the Pure Garden was introduced the Temptation to Sin in the form of a Snake who was the devil, for it is the Devil who tempts us, right?
Now we have all of the elements for the test. Let's play it into action and see what happens.
Adam, the Pure Man is busy enjoying his life and obeying God. Woman, being the lesser of Man, made the easier target for Temptation. So the Snake was sent to Eve, not Adam, to tempt her into committing the one and only Sin possible. You know th rest of the story. Even falls prey to temptation, being weaker in mind, willpower, faith, and conscience than a Man. Eve commits her Sin, but that does not implicate Adam who is still pure. But Eve can not abide her own Evil and therefore, goes to corrupt the Pure Man. Women are the weakness of Men and so Adam knowingly commits Sin.
So there you have it. The Fundamentalist nuts that are trying to find the REAL Garden of Eden won't find it and scholars throughout the world are sadly shaking their heads at this nonsense. Still, it does bring money to the local population to go digging about in the desert surrounding Israel, for if a Crazy Man should offer you money to go dig holes in the desert and you are unemployed and starving, will you be laughing at the offer?
posted on February 26, 2003 05:11:43 PM new
Ok man is the weakest link...... goodbye
Ok that was funny
but, God gave MAN (meaning both man and woman) a thing called free will and choice to do what they will. (And to get all preachy with you He still gives man that choice; right or wrong) What did they do, they used their option of choice and was tempted to sin. (though the story of the snake, the apple and all, could be just that, a story to represent 'sin')
Thats my opinion and I'm stickin to it
Art Bell Retired! George Noory is on late night coasttocoastam.com
