The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
You know what? After examining my life over the past few days, reading over all of my arguments, I've eventually came to the decision that DS was right: liberals are delusional fools, and conservatism is the only realistic ideology which one can follow. I've been a very immoral person my entire life, championing concepts like peace and compassion over the infinitely more important: like violent justice, stability, and absolutist conformity. I've signed up for three classes of Bible study a week. Hopefully G-d will be able to forgive me for my remarks regarding His worship and my disrespect to the sacred book. Thankfully, I must praise Him for implementing the value of redemption; I can make up for my sins by becoming a moral, conservative individual.

Happy April Fool's day, bitches. [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
If you thought I was appealing to the majority, then you're simply wrong, which is possibly the fault of the way I phrased my arguments.

(By the way, you haven't made any real points in this debate aside from saying 'contradiction' where there was none. I don't know if it's my fault, in the way I said something, or your fault in the way you saw it. But honestly, if you want to decently debate, then at least say some valid points.)

Similarly, I've used statistics to prove that liberals are the highest educated, highest payed, and most Academically influential group. You initially said 'prove it', and when I gave you links and exact statistics, you didn't post any sort of rebuttal and instead ignore the point. Yeah, you've 'squashed' my arguments all right.

You really HAVENT though because I've given you articles which show that the upper class elite are conservative republicans, while the majority of the working middle class are liberal democrats. So yes, I squashed your argument. As I often say, you're delusional and in denial so the idea that someone stuffed your arguments would be so appalling to you, you'd just ignore reality (as usual), and carry on.

Sexy, I'll get to your points either tomorrow or later today, hopefully. I really don't have the time to get to all of them at the moment, so just wait up.

And I was joking in my post, in the same way you parodied a liberal point of a view a bunch of pages ago.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Sexy, I'll get to your points either tomorrow or later today, hopefully. I really don't have the time to get to all of them at the moment, so just wait up.

And I was joking in my post, in the same way you parodied a liberal point of a view a bunch of pages ago.

I generalize just as much as you do.

What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? They argue for 50 feakin' pages without even listening to each other.

Whoa........ Deep.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ok, stepping in as judge here, as this thread is being torn tom

Originally posted by Nephthys
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? They argue for 50 feakin' pages without even listening to each other.

Whoa........ Deep.

Originally posted by ~:Mr.Anderson:~
physically? they bounce.

Emotionally they talk about their feelings and cry for a bit.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Oh jesus christ. I'm not going to bother with this point any further. Both Faunus and I made it clear. I've made my argument clear. If you plan on making a legitimate argument, do it. I can accept Faunus not agreeing with me. It gets annoying when someone just doesn't get it. And it's not circular logic. I suppose I can give you the definitions of those 3 as defined by the criminal justice system and the profession of law, but it probably won't do any good judging by your latest posts.

So to summarize: Killing that is defined as wrong is wrong. Taking that is defined as wrong is wrong. Invariably. We have established a tautology that no one will argue with: things that are defined as wrong by us (through our legal system) are wrong. The converse statement is this: things that are not defined as wrong by us (through our legal system) are not wrong. Therefore slavery was not wrong until we defined it as wrong. DS, do you realize that you have shut down the possibility of an absolute moral system more effectively than I ever could have, simply by supporting your beliefs (indicating that they are self-defeating). Had you been born in Germany you would be arguing that the (legal, if a bit extreme) Holocaust was moral because it was defined as moral. You are simply advocating cultural imperialism. Not absolute morals (or else you would be able to give a definition of wrong outside of a legal context) and not constant morals (or what is 'moral' would not have changed throughout history).

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Oh I am. You're still having trouble following a simple concept. Maybe I should stop using big boy words so it won't confuse you anymore.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Wow. Hilarious. Why are you in this country again?

If my point are silly, then your whole argument is the equivalent of a Larry David sitcom. You really haven't argued anything because you don't seem to understand the simple concepts themselves.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

And as far as I recall, never has murder, theft, and rape been condoned by the whole. What is your point again? Did you have any points to begin with?

My point: People do not know the difference between right and wrong. The existence of disagreements over moral issues (animal rights, capital punishment, abortion) proves this very effectively. Acknowledging that no one knows the difference between right and wrong unless something else defines it for them (for you it appears to be the law) and that there are multiple sources of morality (and very different ones at that) there cannot be any one right moral system because there is not any 'higher level' of knowledge available.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Somebody missed their nap.

So to summarize: Killing that is defined as wrong is wrong.

Taking that is defined as wrong is wrong. Invariably. We have established a tautology that no one will argue with: things that are defined as wrong by us (through our legal system) are wrong. The converse statement is this: things that are not defined as wrong by us (through our legal system) are not wrong. Therefore slavery was not wrong until we defined it as wrong. DS, do you realize that you have shut down the possibility of an absolute moral system more effectively than I ever could have, simply by supporting your beliefs (indicating that they are self-defeating). Had you been born in Germany you would be arguing that the (legal, if a bit extreme) Holocaust was moral because it was defined as moral. You are simply advocating cultural imperialism. Not absolute morals (or else you would be able to give a definition of wrong outside of a legal context) and not constant morals (or what is 'moral' would not have changed throughout history).

I wasn't sure that your worldview was this riddled with inconsistencies until I established that the wrongs you supported so fervently were mere tautologies defined by the law.

Condoned by the whole? So now an action is moral if it is approved of by the majority? That definitely means that morals aren't absolute or constant: Slavery therefore used to be moral but stopped being moral. That definition won't work.

My point: People do not know the difference between right and wrong. The existence of disagreements over moral issues (animal rights, capital punishment, abortion) proves this very effectively. Acknowledging that no one knows the difference between right and wrong unless something else defines it for them (for you it appears to be the law) and that there are multiple sources of morality (and very different ones at that) there cannot be any one right moral system because there is not any 'higher level' of knowledge available. [/B]

Since this debate has lasted for countless amounts of pages, I'm going to try something different. I am going to post one lecture a day here (I think there are less than 20), so some of you know where I'm coming from. It's Dennis Prager and his lectures are from 1988-2004, in case people think they're outdated. If any of you have lectures on relativism or liberalism that are available, I'll be more than happy to listen to them.

Translation: Things I call wrong are wrong!

"Wrongful killing is wrong. Wrongful surprise sex is wrong. Wrongful taking is wrong."

Got anything else that is wrong?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Translation: Things I call wrong are wrong!

"Wrongful killing is wrong. Wrongful surprise sex is wrong. Wrongful taking is wrong."

Got anything else that is wrong?

Translation: I don't have an argument so I will refuse to read anything you wrote, instead electing to repeat myself like a retarded parrot. I will also not admit to any of this because it damages my already low self esteem, so I will continue as if I'm right, without actually making an argument.

Poor guy. Doesn't know the definitions of murder, rape, or theft.

I don't know what you want from me. You haven't actually made an argument for me to rebut: all you've done is spout tautologies. That isn't debating. That is recitation, and unless I've said anything wrong that you'd like to dispute then I've established my point and we can move on- that you've got nothing doesn't mean that I have to rebut nothing.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I don't know what you want from me. You haven't actually made an argument for me to rebut: all you've done is spout tautologies. That isn't debating. That is recitation, and unless I've said anything wrong that you'd like to dispute then I've established my point and we can move on- that you've got nothing doesn't mean that I have to rebut nothing.

Even your hero faunus had to correct because you're just not getting it. You're bringing up Germany as if I was arguing wrongs and evils on different societies. You constantly show an inability to either read, or understand points, instead taking the easy way out and claiming I have no argument for you to rebut. I suggest you drop the issue until you learn how to read.

Here's the thing: the only objective definition of morals you've come up with is a legal one- an action is immoral because it is illegal. By this system, none of Hitler's actions would have been immoral by dint of the fact that none of his actions were illegal. As laws change from time to time and place to place, and the only objective measure of an action that you have provided is of its legality, the only morals you've shown are subjective- they depend on the era and region- specifically the legal code.

If you can provide a system of measure that is not a legal code, one bigger than a legal code, then you will have rebutted this point and I will have something to respond to. Otherwise you begin to look a bit lost, endlessly repeating your tautologies in the hope that repetition will make them true.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Here's the thing: the only objective definition of morals you've come up with is a legal one- an action is immoral because it is illegal. By this system, none of Hitler's actions would have been immoral by dint of the fact that none of his actions were illegal. As laws change from time to time and place to place, and the only objective measure of an action that you have provided is of its legality, the only morals you've shown are subjective- they depend on the era and region- specifically the legal code.

If you can provide a system of measure that is not a legal code, one bigger than a legal code, then you will have rebutted this point and I will have something to respond to. Otherwise you begin to look a bit lost, endlessly repeating your tautologies in the hope that repetition will make them true.

Which technically means you still don't get it, and repeating yourself is your only salvation, other than conceding the point or coming up with a better argument. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Is it immoral because it's illegal or is it illegal because it's immoral? I have always stated the latter. So your assertion is wrong because it presents a point i wasn't arguing.

Which technically means you still don't get it, and repeating yourself is your only salvation, other than conceding the point or coming up with a better argument. Gotcha.

Furthermore, since you have demonstrated a reading comprehension deficiency, I will try to repeat it one more time and hope you understand it. The only two excuses for murder have been political agendas and skewed interpretations of religious texts. You continuously mentioning the former helps my argument and does nothing for yours.

MC, Faunus, RH, and anybody else who is interested, here's the first one.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8S4G3S6Q

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Doesn't appear in any of mine. And again, even if this were true, you're still absolutely ridiculous for blaming the Jews, and then other countries, instead of blaming the Germans for what they decided to do.

Huh? Nobody said Nazi Germany was not responsible for the massacre. However, it serves absolutely no purpose (an idea you cannot grasp) to continue to say "well the other side is responsible!!!". While it is true, we cannot force it to change; thus, we must focus on our ability, as the stronger and more influential society, to supply or eliminate motivations. That is the only method of finding change.

You must understand this: it is irrelevant if criminals are responsible for their crimes, or if Hamas is responsible for bombing Israel, or if the Nazis are responsible for committing the Holocaust. They're not going to change all by themselves. Instead, we must focus upon the way we can change and adapt to prevent these actions from coming to pass.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I love how you assert that if we did A, B, or C, there would be no violence, despite having absolutely no proof. Here's a thought. Germany would still have waged war on everyone not of Aryan blood.

Now, let's look at the plan I proposed at how we (yes, 'we', a word you hate so much) could have prevented WWII from coming to pass.

-Accept Jewish immigrants from Nazi Germany. This will simultaneously prevent them from launching a massacre in the internal workings of the country, and will serve to disprove their belief of the Jews being the plight of the world, instead of validating it (in their minds).

-When we have evidence of Germany's growing aggression and militarization, we exercise socio-economic sanctions to prevent them from having the finances to develop a threatening military and subsequently launching a war.

-When (if) Germany invades Poland, it will be with a drastically weakened militia. We intervene and reach an effective compromise, preventing Germany's continued spread of violence.

While it would probably be more complicated than the solution proposed above, the points remain the same. Via logical deduction, it is evidently possible to have prevented the deaths of 60 million people with diplomatic means.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Of course not, because that would require holding someone accountable. I'm sure if this was Israel or America, you'd be blaming it for many things, continuously.

There is no point in blaming the other side. Instead we, as the stronger society, must look at our ability to supply and eliminate motivations and work towards preventing the other side from acting a certain way (environmental influences).

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Which means jack shit for the last time. Having an excuse doesn't equate to having a justification.

Excuse according to your point of view, justification according to them.

Hitler didn't think "I wanna commit genocide!" and thought up a reason to do so. Instead, he came up with a philosophical point of view, repulsive and violent as it is, that led him to the conclusion that violent genocide is a positive thing. Is it? Not according to our moralistic standards or the Jews. Does it make him 'evil', according to some omniscient, all-powerful and infallible source? No.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Call it what you want, whether the 99% of the world agree with it, "most agreed upon", and even MANY people in Germany viewed it wrong. For the last time, the ONLY justification against mass genocide/murder is political agendas or skewed interpretations of ancient texts. I believe i've proven that repeatedly.

Despite having blatantly talked about killing the Jews, Hitler rose to power because he was supported by the majority.

People do not randomly decide to commit genocide and attempt to justify it. Instead, they develop a possible interpretation or view point that ultimately leads them to it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
No, an excuse is NOT a justification. I love your logic. You believe in good and evil as you claim, but you would do anything BUT brand something evil. Yet another contradiction in your enormous chain of contradictions. We uphold the interests of the innocent BECAUSE evil is being done to them.

But you've just proved my points. Evil is not being done, period: evil is being done to them. Letting one morality crush another and preventing somebody's interests from coming into play or to be heard is all I claim is wrong.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Yes, and your "being compassionate over being just" logic is even more simplistic.

These things are not mutually exclusive. Compassion can co-exist with justice; indeed, moral transcendence instead of petty degeneration to childish concepts, which involves 'compassion', is my form of justice.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Except I've shown you throughout history, have 3 of the things I've mentioned have always been punished, aside from the 2 reasons I also mentioned. Again, having an excuse doesn't equate to it being a justification.

Excuse being your viewpoint. You are not God. You are not infallible. Your opinions are not some sort of universal law.

Definitions of the three big 'evils' have varied. It would not have been considered 'murder' to kill a slave in ancient times. It would be today. These things are simply legal matters.

Not to mention that a society would fail to function without these three principles and laws. This is what makes them immoral: not their very nature.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It is not EVIL of the person who screwed over another person? Again, you lack any ability to put the title of evil on any individual, or society.

It is evil to the individual who was screwed. And to prevent evil from being done to certain individuals, we must create laws to protect their interests and not let them be crushed.

Calling someone 'evil' without adding the integral parts of 'according to our standards, to the person he violated, etc' is stupid. I think Hitler was an evil, evil individual. Does it mean he was evil as a result of some form of universal law? No.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
And some things appear to be right for everybody. Excuse=/=justification

I've been over this.