Racist Texans suck?

[Merryprankster]

Let's extend your analogy.

Do we both agree that moral precepts are the principles upon which we (should) base decisions? If not, then this discussion is futile, because I'm just going to have to take my ball and go home

The red brick is the principle. You make a correct decision if you wind up with a red brick. IF and ONLY IF you wind up with a red brick.

So what I'm trying to say is that I agree with the assertion that different SPECIFIC choices may have moral equivalency--however, if they violate the moral precepts (door number 3) then they are morally wrong.

Are we on the same page now? Not trying to talk down to you... I just want to make sure we both have a good understanding of what we're BOTH talking about before we try to talk about it

[Merryprankster]

ARGH!

I DO have to take my ball and go home. Real life is intruding on my virtual one

Sorry Braden! I doubt I could prove you "wrong" but I'm sure it'd be an interesting intellectual exercise for both of us.

[Braden]

"Do we both agree that moral precepts are the principles upon which we (should) base decisions?"

The decision making process for MORAL problems (which are a small minority of the total decisions we make) should be based upon our understanding of what actions are wrong.

"IF and ONLY IF you wind up with a red brick."

Sure. Remembering of course that the rule could have been "red or yellow bricks" or "red bricks or a door that buzzes."

"if they violate the moral precepts (door number 3) then they are morally wrong"

Well, it's semantics. But the action is wrong, not the decision. Also it's wrong for sake of being wrong, not for sake of being not-right. In this sense my wording of the example was poor. My decision to wear brown pants tomorrow isn't morally wrong for lack of being morally right, for example.

"Not trying to talk down to you... "

Not at all. When people don't come to a common understanding of terms, further discussion is limited to "talking at" one another.

[GreyMystik]

i think moral relativism RAWKS

[tsunami surfer]

Scotty I did read your post. I read any post I respond to a couple of times to make sure I dont stick my foot in my mouth. When you were talking about Isreal being backed by The US and how unfair that is, Didnt you know the US gives aid to the palistinians too? Not as much as to Isreal though. Since you were relating to how evil the Jews were in the 40's I just wanted to know if you knew who they were fighting at the time. It was britain and they ran them out. Everyone seems to love to bash the US but they darn sure come around with their hand out when they want something.

[Ryu]

Braden and MerryPrankster,
Your conversation is VERY interesting to me. If it continues with that kind of etiquette and intelligence, we'll all learn something.
I think you're both on the same page, and both agree that the circular arguments of "there is no right or wrong" is logically absurd.
Both of you may come from different backgrounds and beliefs, but I feel you're connecting and agreeing on what is truly "moral" for both of you. And that itself is a big blow to "relativism" itself. (or at least the existential-type fallacy Merry doesn't like)
Good show. I think I may just sit back and watch this one.

GreyMistik stop pickin on our thread
One quote wonders aren't acceptable today

Ryu

[Ryu]

"when some body states that because one group has greater technology, the other group is "forced" into killing innocent woman and childern, as if they have no choice, then that is sheer and total bullcrap. "

I don't disagree with that at all Black Jack.
I think that's very much on the money.

Ryu

[Sharky]

I can't fuc.king stand these posts.

Everyone thinks they know so much.

[rogue]

You know guys it really doesn't matter any more why the Palestinians want the Jews dead. Maybe it did before the Arabs went to war with Isreal but now the why's are irrelevent, the situation over there is just the way it is. People have been brainwashed into killing themselves for a lost cause. At this point either the Palastinians have to go or the Isreali's, and considering the way things are I prefer the top spinners.

You know what burns me, a bunch of thugs using the church in Manger square as a hideout. That's a desecration of a holy place for my faith and as a Christian I am deeply offended. That's why I can side with the Isreali's.

[Ryu]

Get over it, Sharky.

Ryu

[Ky-Fi]

True, I'm not a Jew nor an Arab, and I have no ethnic ties to the region, and I'm not talking from first-hand experience. I just have a lot of trouble taking the Palestinian side. Butchering civilians is not the last resort of an oppressed people--it's evil. Martin Luther King didn't do it (heck, even our "radicals" like Malcolm X didn't do it), Gandhi didn't do it, and Nelson Mandela didn't do it--and they were pretty ****in' oppressed. And another thing--do you think Israel really cares about the post-1967 Palestinian land they're occupying now? They would gladly trade that for peace---if they would really get peace--but they most likely wouldn't. Hamas doesn't want Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders--they want Israel to be destroyed and all the Jews killled. Period. The anti-semitic puke put forth by the state-sponsored Arab media is apalling. Saudi Arabia's state newspaper last year ran a two part series on the practice of Jews using the blood of Christian and Muslim children to make matzos. And as far as the Arab countries' sympathy for Palestinians--well, take a look at how King Hussein of Jordan dealt with the PLO in his country. Take a look at how the Palestinians are second-class citizens in many Arab countries. Check Freedom House to see what area of the world has the least democratic regimes.

As far as all of the radical Arab complaints against the Jews and the West being valid--well, in 1939 I guess you could have said "Hey, that Hitler has some good, valid points about the Jews being parasites and ruining his country, we really should try to understand his logical position instead of just opposing him."

[don bohrer]

Hey whats that about El Paso! Like Taco bell and the Texmex crap served elsewhere is mexican food. Just so you guys know we have plenty of illegal...err I mean moms and grandmas hidden away...err I mean working in our fine establishments.

My copper peice worth....

The diversity that is human life is seperated by 2%. That is to say our DNA from one extreme to the other is 98% the same! Kinda makes you think huh?

I guess humans don't need much to fight over. No matter what club we use to justify our actions it really is just an excuse. A cuase makes violence more palpable for our brains, and lends justification to our actions. As long as we feel justified then we are right! This is a problem when both side in a conflict feel justified. Both think they are right. Well time to make the donuts.

[Mr Punch]

First the facts.

1)I don't support the Palestinians.
2)I don't support the Israelis.
3)Neither 'the' Israelis nor 'the' Palestinians are a hom-ogenous mass.
4)Some Palestinians commit or support terrorist activities.

That's it.

Second, some stuff from some press reports. Obviously, this is my selection, and so is not objective. It is in no particular order.

1)Some Iraeli soldiers have shot civilians.
2)Sharon is not supported by a lot of his own generals, or people.
3)The Israeli minister in charge of the peace deal that Arafat 'turned down' has said that 'Arafat was given no real choice' behind closed doors. The deal was unrealistic and unreasonable.
4)Arafat has been threatened with death by Palestinians and Israelis.
5)Arafat was a terrorist.
6)Sharon was (almost certainly) responsible for at least one massacre of (probable) civilians, personally, as an army commander.

Third, my opinion.

1)People engaged in war against me or my family (by extension I sometimes include my state) are my enemy. I will kill my enemy if I believe they intend to kill me or my family.

2)Palestinian 'civilians' COULD be terrorists. SOME of them are. This doesn't mean they ALL are. Terrorists are an undeclared enemy. Sometimes I don't know who is a terrorist: in that case I will not kill those people until I have some kind of evidence.

3)Some 8 year-olds use sling, stones, and petrol bombs, even guns because they believe someone intends to kill them or their families. Some of these 8 year-olds have no idea of common western perceptions of right and wrong, or even of war or who they are trying to kill. They should not be killed if they are legitimately defending themselves or their homes/families.
They should be imprisoned and/or educated. A few of these 8 year-olds know full well the further implications of what they are dealing with. They should be killed if they intend to take the lives of other civilians.

4)Sharon is not interested in peace. His stated intention is one of vengeance, and his reprisals have been consistent with this intention, causing the killing of many 'civilians'. He is the wrong choice of leader, and western nations should not support him or condone his actions. The possibility of the last statement I made from the press above being true should prohibit Sharon being in power.

5)Arafat isn't a terrorist now. As far as I know (unfortunately, not far enough) he doesn't support terrorist activity now. The first part of (4) in the press section above being true suggests we should give him the benefit of the doubt. Arafat may be the only choice of an influential enough peace-broker that anyone has among the Palestinians.

6)Both Sharon and Arafat are war criminals and should be tried as such in due time.

7)The REAL civilians are the growing number of Israelis refusing military draft in the post 67 occupied territories, and some Palestinians (most of whom being too afraid to speak out).

NONE OF THIS IS BLACK AND WHITE.
All we can do is keep reading, keep educating ourselves, and not resort to knee-jerk violent reactions.
I don't know what the Palestinians and Israelis can do, but I hope that more Palestinians find a voice to speak out against the violence, and I hope that the Israelis remove Sharon and replace him with someone who DEFINITELY isn't a war criminal.

Anyone on this board serious in their stated intentions of violence against people who stated an opposing opinion are heading down the same road as anyone who espouses violence against civilians. Therefore they are contemptible, but I still would not condone violence against them. IF however, they were in the same room as me or in any other position to harm me or my family, and they still reacted in the same way, I would be forced to take it in their seriousness as an attack against me or my family (please refer to opinion (1)).

I have tried to keep this as honest, and as peaceable as possible.
Please respond accordingly.

[Mr Punch]

Just cos I don't know the first thing about your (or any other) state can't stop a bit of good ol'country bigotry!

1)Your 'men' have names like Marion.

2)You are a waste of resources:

3)...you eat too many things that eat too much;

4)... AND drive fat-assed cars.

5)You do your own sisters...

6)...but only cos no-one else would.

7)The food you call 'yours' was invented by other people...

8)...who whooped your sorry butts.

9)You walk like you got a two-piece dinner stuck up your arses.

10)You talk too big. Cut the CO2 where Chimpy's failed!

Dammed bigotry's run out...

[ewallace]

Ahhh shiit. It's on now.

Mat, seeing as your in Tokyo, did you get those ideas from the U.S.?

1)Your 'men' have names like Marion.

- I've never met one person named Marion. Cletus maybe. Get your facts straight.

2)You are a waste of resources:
- We are not a waste of resources, we waste resources. Big difference.

3)...you eat too many things that eat too much;
- I've never witnessed a burrito eat anything.

4)... AND drive fat-assed cars.
- That would be fast-ass cars. Typo forgiven.

5)You do your own sisters...
- Only if they are really hot. This includes cousins too.

6)...but only cos no-one else would.
- The fact she has two kids proves that theory worthless

7)The food you call 'yours' was invented by other people...
- Your technology should just about cover this one.

8)...who whooped your sorry butts.
- Boom.

9)You walk like you got a two-piece dinner stuck up your arses.
- No good Texan would waste a two-piece dinner by putting it in his ass. He would be lynched.

10)You talk too big. Cut the CO2 where Chimpy's failed!
- That's because our vocabulary isn't learned from a kareoke machine.