Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Hugo

Moral Relativism

Recommended Posts

Well the contra scandal was bad. The government that US overthrew wasn't pro-soviet. It was pro-environment, and enacted controls on exports, exports to the US that the US didn't like. The work that the new government did was phemonal. Life was much better under them then the previous pro-American government. Food was abundement, working conditions much better, wages better. Life was overall better.

HOWEVER, the US not liking this new government, funded terrorists.

That is from my heavily pro-american spanish teacher who is a moderate right-wing supporter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In war, that which weakens you strengthens your enemy. America was at war, with the Soviet Union, and as I have said, if you think America was bad you should just take a look at what the good old USSR was getting up to. It was crucial for humanity not to let the Communists win. If you wonder why, just take a look at my post above, and if you think Guantanamo Bay prison is bad just imagine the lubyanka - how many prisoners have "died under interrogation" entered next to their names?

I agree that the Contra scandal was bad. Many things were, war is never pleasant. Some of them were mistakes, some of them not important to winning the Cold War, but as I said, US Presidents are not comic-book-villains and what they do makes sense at the time. You and I are not privy to their information and so any judgement we make is flawed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lie-beralism loves to rewrite history. Contra was an attempt by the US to be on both sides in the Iran-Iraq war - both powers were deemed essential to Middle Eastern stability - as well as unseat an insidious communist dictatorship in Nicaragua without going through an impossibly tortuous House and Congress. It was the right thing to do. The fact that 'stability' there is flawed is now obvious. However, in the 80s this was US doctrine - both countries should offset each other.

I have worked in E. Europe and Russia - it is a landscape that is devoid of anything we here in the West covet or recognise. The entire destruction of people, morals and the environment is so pervasive it will take 2 generations to restore common sense and normalcy.

Cultures and systems are not relative or equal. This is the Lie-beral flaw that snot nosed Harvard Profs espouse.

This is why the elite hates practicality and Republicanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nova.

I did not fail Biology. Did you fail English?

You're so obtuse, it makes my head ache. Riff says we share 97% of DNA with chimps and you say it's 99.9%?? Not that it matters to me anyway, to be honest, but do either of you even know what you're talking about? I never said I was "better" than everything else on this planet. You're the one using that term and insisting that if I point out that humans are OBVIOUSLY far more intelligent than and different to animals, I must mean that I look down my nose and consider myself "better".

I'm not particularly a 'creationist' or an 'evolutionist'. However, I do believe that not enough evidence exists for me to state 100% that evolution is what happened and the earth began with a bang. Unless, of course, you know someone who was there and can therefore explain to me, in great detail, how something comes from nothing. Or possibly your master of the universe learning faculty has published a paper?

Regardless, animals and humans are different. And unborn babies are 100% human. Not 99.9999999%. They acquire .0000001% of DNA on that magical ride down the birth canal, do they? And you ask ME if I failed biology...

Riff, I'm not answering your question about chimps getting 97% of human rights. It's stupid. Sure, let's start with the right to vote... they can't do any worse than you. Oh, and after that the right to marry, apparently without that fundamental human right, the rest is irrelevant anyway.

As I've said before, Nova, the fact that it's humans studying animals and not vice versa should be a small clue for you about who's more advanced. And the fact that "we have more complex minds" does actually speak volumes about our nature. If you could stop the psuedo-intellectual posturing for long enough to actually read what you're trying to shoot down, you might see that what I'm saying makes sense. The fact that humans debate at length over the morality of things they do and a number of other distinctly human behaviours say much more than physical composition. Blood, bone and electrical impulses exist in many living creatures but human beings are distinct.

Aristotle felt that living things should be classified by their nature. He felt that humans were the highest form of life because they possess the ability to think philisophically and seek knowledge through asking and answering questions (in a very small nutshell). He essentially felt that living things equalled more than the sum of their parts. I suppose that being so highly educated, you would simply write off Aristotle as being some idiot that must've failed biology?

Another case in point:

Plato defined a man as animal, biped and featherless and this was admired. Diogenes brought a plucked chicken to Plato's next lecture and said, "Here is Plato's man." Possibly there is more to being human than DNA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for the love of God nova_satori, dont bring up genetics again.

HUGO;

So, Riff, yes, the Soviet Union was an incarnate of evil as much as, if not more so than, Nazi Germany. Do you think the Nazis were not the potential end of the world and not as bad as everyone thought? After all, if you excuse Stalin, Hitler seems like a naughty schoolboy in comparison.

everything you say about the USSR and Nazi Germany is no doubt true, i know that soviet dictators killed millions without mercy, however i see no reason that the evil of another someone elevates the actions of the US by comparison.

in fact, by looking at the worst situations, i think it actually elevates the responsibility of the US and other western nations. i think its insulting to lesson the mistakes of the US by comparing them to the worst situations on earth.

its like saying that the race problems in the US pale in comparison to the race problems in south africa, where white farmers were threatened and kicked off thier land in a national policy.

well yes, the race problem in the US isnt as violently institutionalized as south africa, but look at the differences.

the US is the richest nation, highly education, with a very productive middle class. they dont have war or famine in thier borders, they have oceans on either side, good climate, and the best technology in the world.

can you really dilute their failure by comparing them to war torn, famine starved,arid third world nations?

no, because the US has gained the most from the world, and it has the greatest potential.

when america sits back and lets people suffer it is far more immoral then desperate south africans doing the same. why? because america has prospered by exploiting its power on earth and because they are on of the few that can make a difference.

that is really the greatest failure of a human being, one who has great reason to intervene, who has great potential to intervene, yet does not.

it also extends to nations, america after prospering from the world so much, and while having the potential to act, is MORE tarnished by innaction then some poor third world bastard who has neither the debt to repay nor opportunity to act.

if some backwards white trash guy in some small town in the US grows up without an education, without good role models, without a positive direction becomes some KKK asshole, so be it, its understandable considering the circumstances.

if some middle class son of an accountant in chicago, who has been loved and protected his whole life becomes a racist, it is FAR more of a failure, because he had every opportunity and option to be better then that.

same with the US, they have both the obligation and opportunity to act in meaningfull ways.

so do Canada, and France, adn Germany and several others, but the list is not exceptionally long considering he state of the world and the US leads by far in both its historical obligations and opportunity right now.

THAT is why its of no practical use to discuss the 20 million that died in russia. as horrible as it is, it does not lesson the crimes of the US in the past, it does not lesson the USs obligations to the world as the nation who uses the most resources on eath, and it does not lesson the responsibility of the nation with the greatest power to influence world events. russia cant even feeds it people and keep subs floating at the same time.

Killing someone without their consent is not mercy, it's murder.

no its not that simple, you dont know the circumstances involved. if they were sentient and healthy then its murder. if someone had to make the decision on thier behalf because they were so sick they couldnt function as a humanbeing it could be easily be considered mercy. only those who made the choice know for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riff, I'm not answering your question about chimps getting 97% of human rights. It's stupid. Sure, let's start with the right to vote... they can't do any worse than you. Oh, and after that the right to marry, apparently without that fundamental human right, the rest is irrelevant anyway.

RONDA its not a stupid question because you yourself use genetic equivalence to claim developing embryos deserve the same consideration as sentient adults. i would think you would see the obvious parallel to your own logic below.

Regardless, animals and humans are different. And unborn babies are 100% human. Not 99.9999999%. They acquire .0000001% of DNA on that magical ride down the birth canal, do they? And you ask ME if I failed biology...
You're so obtuse, it makes my head ache. Riff says we share 97% of DNA with chimps and you say it's 99.9%?? Not that it matters to me anyway, to be honest, but do either of you even know what you're talking about?

well once again i must state as someone who has actually cloned and sequenced DNA, i could explain to you the process of maping an entire animal genome and establishing statistical coverage of all DNA base pairs. but somehow i doubt you would be interested in such boring details. so i will just sumerize it and say humans are known to share 97-99% of thier DNA with chimps. this takes into account it would be very time consuming to sequence all humans and all chimps obviously, AND no two chimps or humans are truly identical, so there is a small sampling error too. happy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're so obtuse, it makes my head ache. Riff says we share 97% of DNA with chimps and you say it's 99.9%??

Thank you for moving to different quotes, removing their contexts and then fusing them together to suit your arugment. You DO see the problem with this right?

97% was starfish. 99.9 is chimps

However, I do believe that not enough evidence exists for me to state 100% that evolution is what happened and the earth began with a bang

You cannot know either of the two. You can simply know what the theories state and what is wrong with them. However, there are plently of cases where there are gelogical evidence of evolution.

Regardless, animals and humans are different. And unborn babies are 100% human. Not 99.9999999%. They acquire .0000001% of DNA on that magical ride down the birth canal, do they? And you ask ME if I failed biology...

Does the word "MUTATION" mean ANYTHING TO YOU? How can I have a the same gene if it is a MUTATION? I don't share 100% of my DNA with the average baby. There are genes he/she has that I don't have. While those may be less than 100, that automatically disqualifies me from sharing 100% of my DNA. If we want to go into combinations, there is no way I even share 98% of my DNA combinations with a baby.

Yes, you DID fail biology.

Both of those philosophers who very few of us will understand, were thinking on a different level. They underestood that fundementally, we are animals, but we transend their level of thinking. That still does not make us not animals. We are simply really smart animals.

You're saying we are not animals in any sense. I'd like to drop my last years's AP bio book that weighs 6 pounds of your head and see if you think humans aren't animals.

If we aren't animals, why do they do drugs tests on animals for human consumption? Why do people get impants FROM animals?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
however i see no reason that the evil of another someone elevates the actions of the US by comparison.

First, you are showing a huge double standard. You demand that the US apologise for its war crimes, but you have never voiced the opinion that Japan apologise for and compensate for its far, far more heinous war crimes (they never did, by the way). You constantly blame the US for its conduct overseas but you have nothing to say about the far more egregious conduct of the USSR. You condemn US domestic policy, and you have no opinion about Soviet mass executions and deliberate impoverishment of its people, except as to say that they really weren't all that bad.

They were.

Every country has failings, the US included, and obviously it would do well to address them. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, though, the US is the worst country in the world, apart from all the rest of them.

Here's my point, Riff. If you were truly interested in international justice, you would be far less interested in pushing for the US to be tried for war crimes etc. than you would be in seeking for Japan, the USSR etc to apologise for and compensate for their past crimes.

To use my earlier analogy, I am much more interested in prosecuting and imprisoning serial rapists and murderers than car stereo thieves. It's lousy to have your car stereo stolen, I admit, but which is a greater danger to society - the guy who busts your quarterlight out or the guy who rapes and strangles your daughter?

Secondly, why is the US obliged to do anything? If it were obliged to do something for the rest of the world (and as its wealth and power were self-created, I don't see why it should be), why does that not apply to other nations? Many nations have taken a turn at supreme world power, what do they owe the world exactly, according to you?

If you believe that being rich obliges the US to better conduct, then conversely, you must believe that being poor excuses conduct. How poor does a nation need to be to be excused Stalin's murder of 50 million Soviet citizens? How poor should Imperialist Japan have been to be excused the murder of 13 million Chinese?

no its not that simple, you dont know the circumstances involved.

Yes, I do. I've studied that aspect of Dutch law. Where you said that if you were vegetative, pull the plug... that is legally binding in Holland. If, in 50 years time you become vegetative, I can use that to kill you, even if you've changed your mind in the meantime. Furthermore, the new Dutch law places the burden of proof on the prosecutor, not the doctor. Basically, unless you specifically asked me not to kill you in writing and never made any request to the contrary in your entire life, I can legally kill you and get away scot-free. Sound good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you yourself use genetic equivalence to claim developing embryos deserve the same consideration as sentient adults. i would think you would see the obvious parallel to your own logic below.

I brought that up as sort of a snide sidenote. It was not my central point. Furthermore, I do believe that human life is especially sacred and I believe that human life exists within an unborn baby. Unborn babies are as important as born babies. I am not campaigning for "rights" for them - that was your idiotic conclusion. ("If chimps are 97% identical to humans, should they have 97% of rights too...)

I do, however, think it would be just as horrible to inject a pregnant chimp's womb with saline and kill an unborn chimp as it would be to kill a "born chimp". Shall we discuss the "potentiality" of unborn chimps? How it is ok to kill them in utero but not once they're born... because they aren't really chimps yet, just "potential chimps"? ;)

Thank you for moving to different quotes, removing their contexts and then fusing them together to suit your arugment. You DO see the problem with this right?

97% was starfish. 99.9 is chimps

Thank YOU for knowing how to read. What I said was:

"Riff says we share 97% of DNA with chimps and you say it's 99.9%??"

And by the way, to clarify for both of you... I'll again stress that I don't really care because chimps and humans are not the same thing anyway but the percentage is actually between 95% - 98.5%

Here's a link from a story in Sept. 2002... I think you're both working with old information.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...4_dnachimp.html

If we want to go into combinations, there is no way I even share 98% of my DNA combinations with a baby.

Now, I know from being told over and over again, that you are utterly brilliant and educated beyond all normal levels but let me ask you this:

If you "cannot possibly" share 98% of your DNA with a baby, how can you share 99.999999% with a chimp. Unless there's something you're not telling us. Is it any particular chimp? A second cousin or something?

You're saying we are not animals in any sense. I'd like to drop my last years's AP bio book that weighs 6 pounds of your head

Yeah, nice debate skills they're teaching you. And by the way, most people open books and actually read them... you cannot actually get information from books by physical contact alone. Maybe that's where we're running into problems here.

I never said 'humans are not animals' in the way that you claim. We are all living creatures, with blood and eyeballs and legs, etc. Granted. HOWEVER, humans are VERY different in nature and yes, they are ABOVE animals.

You are attempting to apply some post modernist crap to this argument by stating that since we all belong to the animal kingdom, we're the same. That humans are arrogant for thinking that they're above animals or that they are more complex etc. I do not agree. Now you are attempting to make me out to be stupid because I said we are not the same as animals. We may share a kingdom but not a genus. A pen and a computer are not 'the same' even though they are both inanimate. And one is infinitely more useful than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you "cannot possibly" share 98% of your DNA with a baby, how can you share 99.999999% with a chimp. Unless there's something you're not telling us. Is it any particular chimp? A second cousin or something?

yes, you failed biology miserably. Do you understand how alleles are organized on a chromosome? Or how guinane, cytosine, adenosne, thamine are arrganed? you do know that there are many mistakes in DNA and RNA replication that affects the organism. Many of these mistakes produce the same substance, and are forever encoded in one's DNA. I share the vast majority of my ALLELES with both chimps and babies. I share 98% of my DNA & allele COMBINATIONS with babies. The % of my combinations with chimps I don't know.

Please retake college biology. You have seemed to failed it. I took college biology as a HS junior and I know more then you do.

COMBINATIONS ARE KEY.

Yeah, nice debate skills they're teaching you. And by the way, most people open books and actually read them... you cannot actually get information from books by physical contact alone. Maybe that's where we're running into problems here.

Seeing how little genetics you understand, a knock on the head might bring some back.

HOWEVER, humans are VERY different in nature and yes, they are ABOVE animals.

In what sense? Give any species enough time and they will become as intelligent as we are.

Finish later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In what sense? Give any species enough time and they will become as intelligent as we are.

I won't debate this but would like to add that I am somwhat selfish. I back the human race for now. Check back with me in ten million years and my alliances may switch to the house fly, in the meantime I have a swatter handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny you should mention that. Just last night I was talking with my daughter (Kruella Kittee) and she asked me if there was anything smarter than humans. I told her that I thought dolphins were. However they can't use their fins to write or record thoughts. I also told her that like her they were hard to get out of the pool to get anything done and that every time they try to build something it floats away. Timing is everything Nova. We humans are able to control our environment to make time (among other things) to seemingly slow down or speed up enough to accomplish what we think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you not know that the dolphins have a huge underwater metropolis with stuff we cannot even dream of and they are just pretending to the 2nd smartest species to fool us? :) (p.s they have suits that allow them to walk on land and they will soon take over the planet). Aquariums are simply areas for spying on us. :)

However they can't use their fins to write or record thoughts.

The use their sonar to write into rocks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you not know that the dolphins have a huge underwater metropolis with stuff we cannot even dream of and they are just pretending to the 2nd smartest species to fool us? :) (p.s they have suits that allow them to walk on land and they will soon take over the planet). Aquariums are simply areas for spying on us. :)
However they can't use their fins to write or record thoughts.

The use their sonar to write into rocks!

And have dumbed down agents like Nova Satori to be a pain in the ass and drive us crazy?

I don't. I will however look into it.

Get back to you later on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy definition; Humor is defined 'when a liberal tries to tell the truth'. The insipidity of their statements, the falsehoods of their claims and the adoloscence of their thinking patterns makes great comedy.

It can also be defined as 'when Liberals talk about national security...'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Main Entry: 1hu·mor

Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&r, 'yü-

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English humour, from Middle French humeur, from Medieval Latin & Latin; Medieval Latin humor, from Latin humor, umor moisture; akin to Old Norse vokr damp, Latin humEre to be moist, and perhaps to Greek hygros wet

Date: 14th century

1 a : a normal functioning bodily semifluid or fluid (as the blood or lymph) b : a secretion (as a hormone) that is an excitant of activity

2 a in medieval physiology : a fluid or juice of an animal or plant; specifically : one of the four fluids entering into the constitution of the body and determining by their relative proportions a person's health and temperament b : characteristic or habitual disposition or bent : TEMPERAMENT <of cheerful humor> c : an often temporary state of mind imposed especially by circumstances <was in no humor to listen> d : a sudden, unpredictable, or unreasoning inclination : WHIM <the uncertain humors of nature>

3 a : that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b : the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c : something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing

synonym see WIT

- out of humor : out of sorts

Like always Craig, you are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the english definition accepted by 99.9999% of all dictionaries is wrong and should be replaced with:

Easy definition; Humor is defined 'when a liberal tries to tell the truth'. The insipidity of their statements, the falsehoods of their claims and the adoloscence of their thinking patterns makes great comedy.

It can also be defined as 'when Liberals talk about national security...'

So the use of definitions is without an backup? Language is not proof? A definition that has existed for hundreds of years is wrong?

Thus, you're saying EVERY TIME SOMEONE USED HUMOR IN THE NORMAL WAY, THEY WERE WRONG?

lol. Foolish ignorant Right-wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You babble about nothing of importance. I satirise humor and you go off like a typical Liberal no brain and quote from Webster's. Gee you are very smart. I wonder if I could do the same.

Next time look up SATIRE.

And no, it is not a new tire found on Saturn cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You babble about nothing of importance. I satirise humor and you go off like a typical Liberal no brain and quote from Webster's. Gee you are very smart. I wonder if I could do the same.

Next time look up SATIRE.

NO, you don't satrized things. You simply throw generalized, sweeping anti-liberal, anti-progress insults at anything you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...