Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Israel's fault? Please, do tell. Explain how we've done anything of the sort to Palestinians? We allow them to live in our country, while we as Jews are not to live in other Middle Eastern countries. Where's your anger against them? You're as one sided as they get, which is ironic considering you live in Israel. The only trouble Israel has had is with the radical fundamentalists, who are supported by a majority of Palestinians. I've not heard you mention anything about Israel being treated fairly or Jews being treated fairly. You call people right winged nuts, I call you a liberal fool.
You're the one whose incredibly one-sided about this whole situation. Viewing Israel as the benevolent, perfect 'good guy' is a display of typical conservative bias and distortion of reality.
You want an example of what Israel's done to the Palestinian people? Let's begin with military crimes and massacres against them. Then move into shoving them out of their homes in '48, destroying their life and liberty and turning them into second-class citizens without a full range of human rights (which is ironic, considering the Jews wanted to avoid precisely that by having a country of their own). And inhabiting Palestinian land (until the pull-out a few years ago)? And what about giving them 'just' Gaza after this whole mess, and then doing the equivalent of telling them to shove it. They shouldn't be on their own, and it can only be expected that, with their limited resources and inferior access to education, they wouldn't be able to build a functioning society alone. Besides, the population density in Gaza is the highest in the entire world, which means living conditions there are in unimaginable poverty and suffering.
And it's largely Israel's responsibility for refusing to acknowledge the Palestinians' real need for a better life.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
No, you endorse compassion, plain and simple. Compassion for the aggressors, spite towards the defenders. We aren't fighting for our existence? Please tell Israel that, since they've been fighting for their existence since 1948. You know, being in the center of the middle east doesn't help.
The Palestinian children who are victims of propaganda and oppression and are marched to their deaths by their 'leaders' are the aggressors? WTF? They're the kind of people who deserve compassion and mercy. And you have to look at the bigger picture- killing them is a war crime and something very evil to do, especially when this whole mess is, in many ways, our fault, and we still have an arrogant refusal of fully functioning negotiations. These people don't deserve to die, and even if their deaths manage to help some Israeli people have a better life, the whole price of the situation is far too high.
To put it simply, Hamas' actual level of threat is extremely disproportionate in comparison to the military action you suggest. They're not an actual threat to our existence, and the innocent people there haven't done jackshit to us. All they want is a decent life, and our response is bombings and endless killings? The funny thing, it can all be avoided if we stopped adhering to old traditions and conservative values and moved towards a better existence that endorses change and liberty for all.
The Palestinian people support Hamas because Israel oppresses them and denies them their life. We simply have to give them a better deal, and then Hamas has no place within the government. Aside from this, these people don't deserve to die for the actions of their radical leaders, which is directly what you're implying, especially considering it won't be a permanent solution. Compassion is a good thing. I'm asking you to feel for these people instead of demonizing them and ignoring their lives.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Except we often DO decide on diplomacy. Our military actions come after the aggressors do not agree with diplomacy, and instead attempt annihilation.
Not true. We flat-out refuse to talk to Hamas diplomatically.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
You're right. Lets talk with the fundamentalists. Lets reason with suicide bombers. That's worked so well in the past!
The alternative is the utter destruction of innocents, which is an unnecessary act of terror. Also, when did we ever try it in the past? That's right; we haven't, not in the same way. Just because something didn't work before it doesn't mean it will work now, because circumstances are different. Conservatism is, again, all about maintaining what 'was' instead of focusing of what 'is' at the moment.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
I think everyone is equal in certain aspects. I do not believe in multiculturalism, the idea that something is right in one culture and totally wrong in another. We have universal good and evil. To say otherwise is to admit that nothing is evil, and anything can be justified.
Most things can be 'justified' in a sense, although I do believe there are certain acts of irredeemable evil. You also have to remember that universal right and wrong is dictated by the dominant culture at the time, which means it is likely to favor that culture specifically and therefore harm the 'lesser' cultures. If only we embraced a society that favors true equality among cultures and we stopped seeing things as 'good and evil' and 'superior and inferior', and let go of our petty biases, things would be so much better.
Everything is subjective. From a certain point of perspective, Hamas can be seen as a 'freedom fighter' group who only desire to bring freedom of their people. From a certain point of perspective, Israel is a big evil oppressor country. From a certain point of perspective, the U.S is an evil empire that dominates the world in an unfair way. Need more examples? Good. Stop condemning things as good or evil based on your prejudice and clear favoritism towards the culture that happens to be closer to you.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
What you described is the realistic scenario and a hell of a lot better than "lets all live together in peace and harmony and better the world" hippie bullshit. And it's NOT a matter of perspective. There you go again with your liberal multicultural bullshit. There are universal rights and wrongs. Diplomacy has NEVER worked against radicals. At least with military might, we can dissuade them a little.
Diplomacy has never worked against radicals? Please. Diplomacy was never waged to its full extent against radicals, not in the way I (and many other liberals propose).
Also, you don't think committing genocide upon innocent women and children who are controlled and dominated by larger and more powerful forces is 'universal evil'? I'd see it as such. It's impossible to condemn things as good or evil without looking at the causing circumstances.
Okay, you want to hear a proposition? Okay. Imagine we pull our head out of our collective asses and stop preaching about how the Arabs are 'evil' and we are 'good' and actually agree to talk to Hamas- preferably with some sort of international monitoring in order to ensure the fairness of the deal. Now, instead of keeping the Palestinians in Gaza within un-livable conditions, let's offer them a better and fair offer that enables them to lead the lives we would want to live. Essentially, we extend their country to a far larger land, which enables them to lead a better life- this 'deal' includes giving them Jerusalem, or at least the part necessary for them to cultivate their religious acts as they desire. We supply them water, food, supplies, money, and directly assist in constructing a better society. A modern society.
The necessity for Hamas will be gone. The Palestinians endorse Hamas because they have to- they feel it is the only way to live a better life. Israel's inflicted an incredible amount of pain upon the Palestinians and treated them as an inferior group of people since Israel's formation, and this causes the Palestinians to hate Israel with a passion. Hamas can take advantage of those feelings of hatred and offer what the Palestinians view as the only possible way to escape their horrid lives. So, instead of maintaining this 'status quo', so to speak, let's offer the Palestinians a better alternative- one that enables them to live as people, and not as animals. We can break out of this cycle this way.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Conservatism is easy to understand but hard to practice. It involves making decisions that may be difficult, but necessary. Liberalism is easy as hell. Everyone is equal, people are inherently good, there is no evil, everyone is right. Hilarious bullshit.
I'm not saying people are inherently good, but does it mean we can revert back to our evil nature during war? I say, no. What separates us from animals is the ability to go beyond our nature, thanks to our understanding of morality and intelligence.
It's not that 'everyone is right', but it's the fact that 'right' is a matter of subjectivity and perspective. If you look at things in an unbiased light, you'll see that pure evil and pure good are mostly myths.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
It's opposed to change and acceptance that threatens the values, morals, and principles of a society.
So letting a traditionally oppressed minority lead a fair life in actual peace with us threatens the 'values, morals, and principles' of Israel? No, it honestly doesn't.
You have to understand that certain values are outdated, illogical, and should be dropped in according to modern times.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Are you familiar with any policies of Lincoln or FDR? I didn't think so. How about Regan? Best president we've ever had in my opinion. Liberalism is what is destroying our society. There's no place for it in this world.
Oh, and you're really willing to listen to what liberals have to say! Also, I'm aware of FDR's and Lincoln's policy, thanks very much.
Liberalism is what brings change and causes the dropping of ridiculous, irrelevant 'values' and leads to a better, more just existence. Just because something has been done throughout the entirety of history doesn't mean it is right, and conservatism stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this fact. You know what I mean. Oppression against women, blacks, 'ethnics', gays, whatever.
Liberalism is about embracing a modern society and moving beyond our past. Conservatism is about fear of modernization and the desperate attempts at maintaining old-time values and ideals.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Here's another example of liberalism at its finest. Ignore human beings and instead focus on socioeconomic factors, government, society, etc. ANYTHING other than having individuals take responsibility for themselves. Liberals hate the idea of personal responsibility, and instead blame everything on society, government, and Regan. This is why our society is crumbling, with stupidity like that. Lets patronize minorities some more by NOT treating them as equals! Lets treat them as minorities and blame society for their downfall. You're proving my point to oeasily here.
So conservatives stubbornly turn their head in the other direction and ignore society's injustices, instead blaming it all on the oppressed? I can't believe someone can be so uncaring.
Fact is, everyone has the potential to be equal, but the government and a flawed society prevents people from acquiring equal treatments. Ignoring this is silly and flat-out evil.
You need to care about people more. The job of the government is to serve its people, not the other way around, and therefore it should do the maximum to help.
You know what? Answer this: Are gays responsible for hate crimes and homophobia? Are people in poverty and slums responsible for it, and therefore should not be helped? Are blacks responsible for racial discrimination against them? Are the Palestinians responsible for not being able to lead a decent life while they are shoved into a high-density country with little to no supplies and money?
I'll give you a hint: it's not their fault. It's the fault of the unfair society that prevents them from having equal opportunities in life. Not everyone can get a decent education, get a good job, and lead a good life. Not because of their own lack of skill, but because of the fact that the society prevents them from having the same opportunities as a 'stronger' group of people.
And even if it's their own lack of skill or chronic laziness (which it's not), do you suggest abandoning them to their fate or at least pushing them in the right direction?
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
]You're the one whose incredibly one-sided about this whole situation. Viewing Israel as the benevolent, perfect 'good guy' is a display of typical conservative bias and distortion of reality.
You want an example of what Israel's done to the Palestinian people? Let's begin with military crimes and massacres against them. Then move into shoving them out of their homes in '48, destroying their life and liberty and turning them into second-class citizens without a full range of human rights (which is ironic, considering the Jews wanted to avoid precisely that by having a country of their own). And inhabiting Palestinian land (until the pull-out a few years ago)? And what about giving them 'just' Gaza after this whole mess, and then doing the equivalent of telling them to shove it. They shouldn't be on their own, and it can only be expected that, with their limited resources and inferior access to education, they wouldn't be able to build a functioning society alone. Besides, the population density in Gaza is the highest in the entire world, which means living conditions there are in unimaginable poverty and suffering.
And it's largely Israel's responsibility for refusing to acknowledge the Palestinians' real need for a better life.
The Palestinian children who are victims of propaganda and oppression and are marched to their deaths by their 'leaders' are the aggressors? WTF? They're the kind of people who deserve compassion and mercy. And you have to look at the bigger picture- killing them is a war crime and something very evil to do, especially when this whole mess is, in many ways, our fault, and we still have an arrogant refusal of fully functioning negotiations. These people don't deserve to die, and even if their deaths manage to help some Israeli people have a better life, the whole price of the situation is far too high.
To put it simply, Hamas' actual level of threat is extremely disproportionate in comparison to the military action you suggest. They're not an actual threat to our existence, and the innocent people there haven't done jackshit to us. All they want is a decent life, and our response is bombings and endless killings? The funny thing, it can all be avoided if we stopped adhering to old traditions and conservative values and moved towards a better existence that endorses change and liberty for all.
The Palestinian people support Hamas because Israel oppresses them and denies them their life. We simply have to give them a better deal, and then Hamas has no place within the government. Aside from this, these people don't deserve to die for the actions of their radical leaders, which is directly what you're implying, especially considering it won't be a permanent solution. Compassion is a good thing. I'm asking you to feel for these people instead of demonizing them and ignoring their lives.
Not true. We flat-out refuse to talk to Hamas diplomatically.
The alternative is the utter destruction of innocents, which is an unnecessary act of terror. Also, when did we ever try it in the past? That's right; we haven't, not in the same way. Just because something didn't work before it doesn't mean it will work now, because circumstances are different. Conservatism is, again, all about maintaining what 'was' instead of focusing of what 'is' at the moment.
Most things can be 'justified' in a sense, although I do believe there are certain acts of irredeemable evil. You also have to remember that universal right and wrong is dictated by the dominant culture at the time, which means it is likely to favor that culture specifically and therefore harm the 'lesser' cultures. If only we embraced a society that favors true equality among cultures and we stopped seeing things as 'good and evil' and 'superior and inferior', and let go of our petty biases, things would be so much better.
Everything is subjective. From a certain point of perspective, Hamas can be seen as a 'freedom fighter' group who only desire to bring freedom of their people. From a certain point of perspective, Israel is a big evil oppressor country. From a certain point of perspective, the U.S is an evil empire that dominates the world in an unfair way. Need more examples? Good. Stop condemning things as good or evil based on your prejudice and clear favoritism towards the culture that happens to be closer to you.
Diplomacy has never worked against radicals? Please. Diplomacy was never waged to its full extent against radicals, not in the way I (and many other liberals propose).
Also, you don't think committing genocide upon innocent women and children who are controlled and dominated by larger and more powerful forces is 'universal evil'? I'd see it as such. It's impossible to condemn things as good or evil without looking at the causing circumstances.
Okay, you want to hear a proposition? Okay. Imagine we pull our head out of our collective asses and stop preaching about how the Arabs are 'evil' and we are 'good' and actually agree to talk to Hamas- preferably with some sort of international monitoring in order to ensure the fairness of the deal. Now, instead of keeping the Palestinians in Gaza within un-livable conditions, let's offer them a better and fair offer that enables them to lead the lives we would want to live. Essentially, we extend their country to a far larger land, which enables them to lead a better life- this 'deal' includes giving them Jerusalem, or at least the part necessary for them to cultivate their religious acts as they desire. We supply them water, food, supplies, money, and directly assist in constructing a better society. A modern society.
The necessity for Hamas will be gone. The Palestinians endorse Hamas because they have to- they feel it is the only way to live a better life. Israel's inflicted an incredible amount of pain upon the Palestinians and treated them as an inferior group of people since Israel's formation, and this causes the Palestinians to hate Israel with a passion. Hamas can take advantage of those feelings of hatred and offer what the Palestinians view as the only possible way to escape their horrid lives. So, instead of maintaining this 'status quo', so to speak, let's offer the Palestinians a better alternative- one that enables them to live as people, and not as animals. We can break out of this cycle this way. [/B]
Originally posted by Master Crimzon
I'm not saying people are inherently good, but does it mean we can revert back to our evil nature during war? I say, no. What separates us from animals is the ability to go beyond our nature, thanks to our understanding of morality and intelligence.
It's not that 'everyone is right', but it's the fact that 'right' is a matter of subjectivity and perspective. If you look at things in an unbiased light, you'll see that pure evil and pure good are mostly myths.
So letting a traditionally oppressed minority lead a fair life in actual peace with us threatens the 'values, morals, and principles' of Israel? No, it honestly doesn't.
You have to understand that certain values are outdated, illogical, and should be dropped in according to modern times.
Liberalism is what brings change and causes the dropping of ridiculous, irrelevant 'values' and leads to a better, more just existence. Just because something has been done throughout the entirety of history doesn't mean it is right, and conservatism stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this fact. You know what I mean. Oppression against women, blacks, 'ethnics', gays, whatever.
Liberalism is about embracing a modern society and moving beyond our past. Conservatism is about fear of modernization and the desperate attempts at maintaining old-time values and ideals.
So conservatives stubbornly turn their head in the other direction and ignore society's injustices, instead blaming it all on the oppressed? I can't believe someone can be so uncaring.
Fact is, everyone has the potential to be equal, but the government and a flawed society prevents people from acquiring equal treatments. Ignoring this is silly and flat-out evil.
You need to care about people more. The job of the government is to serve its people, not the other way around, and therefore it should do the maximum to help.
You know what? Answer this: Are gays responsible for hate crimes and homophobia? Are people in poverty and slums responsible for it, and therefore should not be helped? Are blacks responsible for racial discrimination against them? Are the Palestinians responsible for not being able to lead a decent life while they are shoved into a high-density country with little to no supplies and money?
I'll give you a hint: it's not their fault. It's the fault of the unfair society that prevents them from having equal opportunities in life. Not everyone can get a decent education, get a good job, and lead a good life. Not because of their own lack of skill, but because of the fact that the society prevents them from having the same opportunities as a 'stronger' group of people.
And even if it's their own lack of skill or chronic laziness (which it's not), do you suggest abandoning them to their fate or at least pushing them in the right direction? [/B]
You can't push someone in the right direction if they aren't willing to try.
Originally posted by Darth SexyThat depends.
We as a society, have universal rights and wrongs.
Murder is wrong. Rape is wrong. I hear this a lot but only from liberals, "who are you to say what's right or wrong".Yet you can't answer the question.
By your logic, anything can be justified then. I suppose the holocaust wasn't wrong because the Nazis believed it was their right to cleanse the world of Jews. I suppose suicide bombing isn't wrong because radical fundamentalists believe they will go to heaven with 70 virgins.
This is one of many places where you and I differ. My view of what qualifies as a justification is based simply on logic; if it doesn't hold up to impartial scrutiny as a logical standard, it doesn't make sense. This is one reason why I don't respect Nazi Germany; the reasoning behind their attempted genocide of the Jewish people was weak (as is the reasoning behind genocide in general). It's also why I'm against murder, rape, etc.; it serves no purpose. The murder or rape of one affects many, directly or indirectly, and those effects are almost universally negative. I don't think in terms of good and evil, because I believe both are fabricated concepts that are applied differently by each different individual or group. You believe that you are a victim and and a hero - the good guy - and that the masses of Gaza are the aggressors and the embodiment of evil. It's black and white to you; I don't think that way.
And I never said all liberals' beliefs are "garbage".
Originally posted by YouThis entire debate is about philosophy. That's all it's ever been about.
And again, please refrain from the philosophical garbage.
So much for reading comprehension.That wouldn't have been related to "comprehension," because I was quoting you. Nice try.
I just said that I've yet to meet an intelligent one that can justify his or her beliefs, other than "who are you to ....."That's where the derision of all liberals becomes rather stupid. Many of my own personal views are more centrist than liberal, and I have a few decidedly conservative stances (the Patriot Act, affirmative action, aspects of the economy); I'm hardly the "typical liberal" you keep referring to.
This is why I think labels in general are stupid. They cloud perception and allow for snap judgement far too often.
I didn't mean to bring it out as a concept. It's just the idea that we do have universal rights and wrongs.This is a broad and very difficult subject. But put simply, the reasoning behind when or why something is right or wrong are important when you're trying to look at the world as a whole.
I doubt that you could find me one.Which, again, goes back to the fact that you probably wouldn't acknowledge an "intelligent" liberal as "intelligent." I couldn't ever accept the reasoning behind a suicide bomber's actions because I take issue with the underlying framework of that reasoning: "God says so."
And again, you should probably look at "liberals" with a more open mind. They don't all think the same way, just as I'm sure not all conservatives think the same way.
I said he is wrong because I'm a conservative? So much for logical deduction skills.Your conservatism is irrelevant. The point is that you're set in your beliefs, and they are unlikely to change.
I explained why I thought he was wrong. And you need to stop with this whole "well you're in Texas and he's in Israel" crap.You are in Texas, he is in Israel, and I'm fairly sure both of you grew up in the country's that you currently live in.
I know MANY people living in Israel, including Yeshivas and mostly the Israeli army, and as someone who's been to Israel on multiple occasions, I have an idea of the situation there.Which justifies this comment, I'm sure:
Originally posted by YouYou can apologize to him now, if you'd like. I'm sure he'd accept.
I wouldn't call you a Hamas apologist yet but you're definitely not a Jew or Israeli, or logical in the least bit.
But I genuinely think that Liberals aren't realistic in their mindsets.If you take issue with the extreme "left-wing," I can't fault you. If you take issue with "liberals" as whole, I suppose I won't change your mind, but I will attack any and all logical flaws in your reasoning.
Darth Sexy on LiberalsROFL.
Blame the actual victims, while victimizing the aggressors; typical liberal tactic.Liberals use this perceived racism or whatever as a crutch instead of having those people taking responsibility for their failures.
You need to get this liberal propaganda out of your head because as most liberal rhetoric, it's not reality.
When has any liberal proposition worked?
Strangely, the majority of your world doesn't share your view, which gives me some hope for society.
So excuse us for being realistic while you sit there with your liberal Monday morning quarterbacking. Why the hell would we give them Jerusalem? The birth of Judaism? What are you, a self hating Jew or self hating Israeli?
You just described the liberal view. Liberals condemn the oppressed while supporting the aggressors. Liberals blame society. Liberals are self hating Americans, self hating Israelis. "Uncaring". That's a riot.
Rofl. The TYPICAL liberal argument.
Lets adapt to the liberal mindset where nothing is good or evil and everyone is entitled to do whatever they want because justifications are no longer needed.
Liberalism doesn't lead to a better existence, sorry to tell you that. Liberalism leads to denial and delusion. Liberalism assumes everyone is inherently good, so lets live together and if someone does something bad, it's not their fault, it's society's, or the government's or Regan's fault.
Compassion. Another liberal word.What the ****?
Liberalism is about not thinking at all, claiming everyone is equal, there is no right or wrong, animals have the same rights as humans, etc. A load of bullshit basically.There's an unbiased look at it for you.
That's the liberal mentality.That's reality.
Crime causes poverty.It sometimes works both ways, but crime is usually a byproduct of poverty, not the other way around.
People in poverty can go out and try to get jobs. The government doesn't owe them anything.Because it's that simple, I'm sure. Yeah, all those pennyless bitches are just too damn lazy and stupid to go take care of themselves.
Liberals hate the term "responsibility".Suuure.
They instead love "compassion" and "victim".You used the word "victim" too, smartass.
Originally posted by You
Israel, while isn't perfect, is certainly the hero and the victim and the same time while it's Hamas and the Palestinians who are the aggressors.
Society doesn't prevent you from doing anything. If you go out and try, you are likely to succeed in some way.I don't even understand how an educated American in his twenties could convince himself that this is realistic.
Liberalism use perceived oppression as actual oppression.Using the exception as the rule (affirmative action) I actually agree with this. Most other applications of it, however - the ones you're using - are nonsense.
Why the hell would we give them Jerusalem? The birth of Judaism? What are you, a self hating Jew or self hating Israeli?This itself is a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier.Liberals are self hating Americans, self hating Israelis.
Originally posted by Publius IIBecause it's that simple, I'm sure. Yeah, all those pennyless bitches are just too damn lazy and stupid to go take care of themselves.
You used the word "victim" too, smartass.
I don't even understand how an educated American in his twenties could convince himself that this is realistic.
This itself is a perfect example of what I was talking about earlier. [/B]
Btw, you'll have to specify what you were "talking about earlier". With a statement like that, I haven't the foggiest notion.
Originally posted by Publius II
Yet you can't answer the question.
All acts are justified by the individual or group responsible for them. That doesn't mean that those justifications make sense to other individuals or groups. Christians who oppose homosexuality probably do so because the Bible labels sodomy a sin; I don't give a shit what the Bible says, so that justification doesn't work for me. But I still acknowledge that the justification exists.
You say you don't give a shit about the bible, so let me ask you. Where did you learn your morals and ethics from? I learned mine from the Torah. The same morals and ethics that have kept my people alive for a better part of 4,000 years. My problem with athiests, agnostics, and philosophers is they try to take everything literally, and at face value. As I said, in a G-dless world, there are no rights or wrongs. Everything's subjective. I don't buy that.
This is one of many places where you and I differ. My view of what qualifies as a justification is based simply on logic; if it doesn't hold up to impartial scrutiny as a logical standard, it doesn't make sense. This is one reason why I don't respect Nazi Germany; the reasoning behind their attempted genocide of the Jewish people was weak (as is the reasoning behind genocide in general). It's also why I'm against murder, rape, etc.; it serves no purpose. The murder or rape of one affects many, directly or indirectly, and those effects are almost universally negative. I don't think in terms of good and evil, because I believe both are fabricated concepts that are applied differently by each different individual or group. You believe that you are a victim and and a hero - the good guy - and that the masses of Gaza are the aggressors and the embodiment of evil. It's black and white to you; I don't think that way.
This entire debate is about philosophy. That's all it's ever been about.
That's where the derision of all liberals becomes rather stupid. Many of my own personal views are more centrist than liberal, and I have a few decidedly conservative stances (the Patriot Act, affirmative action, aspects of the economy); I'm hardly the "typical liberal" you keep referring to.
This is why I think labels in general are stupid. They cloud perception and allow for snap judgement far too often.
This is a broad and very difficult subject. But put simply, the reasoning behind when or why something is right or wrong are important when you're trying to look at the world as a whole.
Which, again, goes back to the fact that you probably wouldn't acknowledge an "intelligent" liberal as "intelligent." I couldn't ever accept the reasoning behind a suicide bomber's actions because I take issue with the underlying framework of that reasoning: "God says so."
And again, you should probably look at "liberals" with a more open mind. They don't all think the same way, just as I'm sure not all conservatives think the same way.
Your conservatism is irrelevant. The point is that you're set in your beliefs, and they are unlikely to change.
Which justifies this comment, I'm sure:
You can apologize to him now, if you'd like. I'm sure he'd accept.
If you take issue with the extreme "left-wing," I can't fault you. If you take issue with "liberals" as whole, I suppose I won't change your mind, but I will attack any and all logical flaws in your reasoning. [/B]
The concept of compassion versus justice. Liberals believe in compassion so when someone commits a crime, it's not the criminals' fault. It's the government, society, or Regan's fault. Unless you're a rich white collar criminal, then it's your fault.
The concept of multiculturalism as i've described. Stating that something that is wrong in your society may be right in another one. If you really DO accept the idea of multiculturalism, then there's no denying that you would have to accept the justification of the Nazis because what they thought they were doing with their ethnic cleansing, was justified.
I had a 3rd one but I forgot it. We'll touch on it later.
Originally posted by Darth SexyI didn't say that. I think the government should assist in reintegrating them into society should those individuals be willing to do so, but I don't believe that it is universally responsible for the plights of all poor people. There is no arguing that historically, society at large has not been kind to the less fortunate. I won't tell the wealthy that it is their responsibility to host food drives and soup kitchens, but I will ask the government to step in where appropriate and create opportunities where there are none. I'm not requesting handouts; something along the lines of a heavily modified CCC would give essentially every able individual living in poverty a shot at a better life while helping society at the same time.
You're right. Lets just call them victims and give them everything. Lets blame the government and society for their troubles. That's a hell of a lot better.
I don't understand how an educated American in his twenties could convince himself that the liberal mindset is realistic, or even conducive to the success of society.My mindset in regards to this topic is based on reasonable rationality and the understanding of how and why different groups or individuals function as they do. I'll be the first to admit that the majority of liberals do not think the way I do; few are capable of articulating and explaining their positions in a manner that can actually be accepted by any opposing audience. But that can be said about the majority of adherents to most philosophies, conservative and religious ones included.
And who said I'm in my mid-twenties?
In a war sense, there are aggressors and there are victims. I guess I can say the side that retaliates. But that's a different context.These are no longer relevant to the discussion. Don't worry about them.Btw, you'll have to specify what you were "talking about earlier". With a statement like that, I haven't the foggiest notion.
In a G-dless world, anything goes.
See, this is where our opinions diverge. (For the first time. We disagree on plenty of other stuff too.) I am 'moral' because it is the best way to function within a community. Actions that endanger society as a whole are 'evil', while actions that enhance the society's (or individual's) capacity to produce, lead an enjoyable life, or contribute are 'good.'
You are 'moral' because some guy 2000+ years ago thought "Woah! An invisible guy is talking to me!" That guy (who was probably stoned if we go by some of the edicts that are actually in the Old Testament) has locked you into a code of ethics tailored to fit a pre-enlightenment world- one that embraced genocide and slavery, and one without any understanding of racial equality or scientific concepts. The Judeo-Christian worldview is outdated, and requires selective reading/editing or interpretation to fit into the modern world of multicultural pluralism. This process of choosing which tenets you want to accept allows for much more freedom and opportunities for misbehavior than does (secular) liberalism. That your morals are 'divinely given' only amplifies their potential destructive capabilities.
Originally posted by Gideon
God, my fellow monotheists irk me. But so do non-Christians. For ****'s sake, you can't disprove God's existence. So don't make baseless, retarded assumptions like "lulz he was teh stonned!!1!"
It wasn't so much an assumption as a poorly executed jab at the reliability (or lack thereof) of ancient scripture.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
See, this is where our opinions diverge. (For the first time. We disagree on plenty of other stuff too.) I am 'moral' because it is the best way to function within a community. Actions that endanger society as a whole are 'evil', while actions that enhance the society's (or individual's) capacity to produce, lead an enjoyable life, or contribute are 'good.'
You are 'moral' because some guy 2000+ years ago thought "Woah! An invisible guy is talking to me!" That guy (who was probably stoned if we go by some of the edicts that are actually in the Old Testament) has locked you into a code of ethics tailored to fit a pre-enlightenment world- one that embraced genocide and slavery, and one without any understanding of racial equality or scientific concepts. The Judeo-Christian worldview is outdated, and requires selective reading/editing or interpretation to fit into the modern world of multicultural pluralism. This process of choosing which tenets you want to accept allows for much more freedom and opportunities for misbehavior than does (secular) liberalism. That your morals are 'divinely given' only amplifies their potential destructive capabilities.
My point is, while I think Judaism is the only true religion and in the arguments of religions, this is pretty cut and dry, I also believe there are many paths to achieve good morals and ethics. What was the saying by Luke Skywalker. There is a river and there are many different cups from which to drink from, or something like that.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It wasn't so much an assumption as a poorly executed jab at the reliability (or lack thereof) of ancient scripture.
Assuming people wrote the scriptures, and not G-d. And escape is right. While religions is mostly based on faith, you can't disprove that there is a G-d. There have been events in my life that made me not only believe that there is a G-d, but basically know there is. There are coincidences and there are things that are more. It's impossible to explain as I do not have the Rabbinical credentials.
Originally posted by Darth Sexy
Assuming people wrote the scriptures, and not G-d. And escape is right. While religions is mostly based on faith, you can't disprove that there is a G-d. There have been events in my life that made me not only believe that there is a G-d, but basically know there is. There are coincidences and there are things that are more. It's impossible to explain as I do not have the Rabbinical credentials.
Right, and how exactly can one disprove there is a God. There is a reason for everything, and this reason is never "God made it happen", untill you prove that and not the other way around.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It wasn't so much an assumption as a poorly executed jab at the reliability (or lack thereof) of ancient scripture.
Poorly executed, but very realistic though.
What if this guy had charisma and he claimed certain matters, people will automatically believe this (especially in those times) AND pass it on, these people will pass it on too, so the crowd gets larger and because the crowd gets larger, people will easier believe it because so many others do. They will start to enhance this feeling by standardizing it thus making it a habit and people will see it as common, even neccessairy. So people will fight for these stupid things.
Very wrong.
EDIT: no offense to all believers though.
Originally posted by Darth SexyWhat is considered wrong to us isn't necessarily considered wrong to them. That is my stance in a nutshell, and I'll elaborate on it throughout this post.
I can tell you what is considered wrong in America.
I can tell you that genocide is considered wrong my most societies standards. Whether I can pinpoint a specific source is irrelevant. You can't tell me everything is subjective.If it can be viewed in more than one light, it is subjective. The Nazis and other similar extremist, genocidal groups (radical Muslims, Hindus, Hutus, etc.) all clearly believe that they are justified in their actions.
Justifying something doesn't make it right.The very act of justifying something does make it right to the ones agreeing with or supporting that particular justification. This is why I repeatedly state that nearly all matters relevant to this debate are subjective; just because you and I come to the conclusion that violent persecution of a passive group is wrong doesn't mean that everyone else has to agree.
If your logic was correct and everything was subjective, then there wouldn't be a world war against the Nazis. Unless of course the fact that most of society agrees on a principle, that doesn't make it right.See the above. I do not agree with Nazi Germany's rationalizations. Clearly, much of the rest of the world didn't, either. That doesn't mean that, to those adherents of Nazi beliefs, their actions weren't justified.
You say you don't give a shit about the bible, so let me ask you. Where did you learn your morals and ethics from?My mother is a nontraditional Hindu, and my father is sort of a spiritual realist, I suppose. I've been conditioned to adhere to traditional Judeo-Christian moral values by American society.
I learned mine from the Torah. The same morals and ethics that have kept my people alive for a better part of 4,000 years. My problem with athiests, agnostics, and philosophers is they try to take everything literally, and at face value.What's wrong with that?
As I said, in a G-dless world, there are no rights or wrongs. Everything's subjective. I don't buy that.So there needs to be a God to maintain order and establishment?
Well, we arrive at the same conclusion most of the time, using different methods. The beauty of Judaism is that it is 100% logical, in terms of its practicality.I'm not exactly well-versed in it, so I won't argue this. But in my experience, no organized religion is completely logical. From my understanding, most religions in general can attribute their existence to a need to establish order in accordance to the codes of conduct that pervaded their respective societies at the time, and to explain the inexplicable. Their major tenets (respect, karma, devotion) were developed to maintain that order, and I believe that the basis of those tenets are necessary ideals. I think we can agree there.
What I don't see is how homosexuality or sodomy hurt society.
Again, it's easy for you to attempt to see a gray area in this conflict because you have no vested interest in it. I don't have that luxury. Judaism is predicated on 3 things; G-d, Torah, and Israel. And since 1948 Israel has had to deal with the same crap over and over again. In fact, you claim you don't see things black and white, then please explain the Israel-Hamas border from a realistic point of view. Nothing I've ever read online, watched on the news, or in books, has ever indicated Israel being the aggressor. If you can show me when and where Israel was the aggressor and how Israel oppresses Palestinians, I'll listen. I have no problem listening to the other side. I have a problem when I believe the other side is wrong.I don't believe that I said Israel was the aggressor, either here or earlier on. If I did, I apologize.
My stance was that Israel's retaliation was justified, but it was essentially overkill. I can't condone the death of even a single innocent man, woman, or child, and Israel's "defensive" took hundreds.
That said, I cannot condemn it for its actions, either. It is a personal belief of mine that you can't criticize a solution to a problem unless you can come up with a better one, and to be honest I don't know how Israel could have forced Hamas into submission without the loss of a single civilian life. It acted to defend its people and its territory, and that is the right of any nation.
Show me where I referred to you as the "typical liberal".I didn't say you did. I was just reminding you that I'm not the type of liberal that you seem to hate.
If you were to tell me you were a liberal, I would say you were intelligent. I would of course disagree on a lot of your issues but as you said, you're hardly the typical liberal, so why wouldn't I admit to you being intelligent?I said that's their justification.Btw, it never says anything in the Quran about G-d saying so. My problem with fundamentalists is that they use their bible to justify their actions, and take text out of context to further their own agendas.
Then I shall refer to liberals who have predominantly liberal ideas.I certainly have predominantly liberal ideas, I'm just not extreme.
This is an unfounded assumption, which i can tell you over the course of my life, is completely inaccurate.You think it's likely that your beliefs are going to change?
I'm passionate about the issue. I never claimed to excel at debating, nor the concept of patience. One must learn to crawl before he can walk. It's a process.Fair enough.
I take issues with the extreme left wing. Let me give an example I think I've stated already.I believe that society needs to tear out the roots of the overwhelming majority of crimes; poverty, prejudice [perceived or actual], and poor education. The existence of each of those helps perpetuate the others.The concept of compassion versus justice. Liberals believe in compassion so when someone commits a crime, it's not the criminals' fault. It's the government, society, or Regan's fault. Unless you're a rich white collar criminal, then it's your fault.
That said, I certainly believe that individuals are responsible for the crimes they commit. I think the death penalty is stupid, but you don't see me complaining about the existence of jails (although our system is atrociously flawed).
The concept of multiculturalism as i've described. Stating that something that is wrong in your society may be right in another one. If you really DO accept the idea of multiculturalism, then there's no denying that you would have to accept the justification of the Nazis because what they thought they were doing with their ethnic cleansing, was justified.I wouldn't have to accept the justification itself; that's where logic comes in. I'd simply have to accept that, to them, the justification exists. Its validity is always in question.
I had a 3rd one but I forgot it. We'll touch on it later.Alright.
Originally posted by Slash_KMC
[B]Right, and how exactly can one disprove there is a God. There is a reason for everything, and this reason is never "God made it happen", untill you prove that and not the other way around.