2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Eco Terrorists vs. Chistian Missonairies: Which is Worse?
    Extremestan, either you can argue that your religion is correct and have no support at all for that claim, or you can continue to argue one of those "this is possible" ideas, which while true, has no application to anything other than highly random arbitrary beliefs aplied to life; normally, Occam's Razor cuts through here.

    There could be a God, and the Bible, beyond some locations and names/events which are actually based on true stories, could actually be fairly true in some areas, such as the attributes of God and Jesus. Then again there is no reason to believe that, there is no consensus (or anything close) for this in the scientific, archaelogical, or historian communities either.

    Someone can believe God exist and said X is evil because "this book said so" and his preist "said so" and other people "said so", and he has the right to do believe that and avoid X, even though it is all just silly. He does not, however, have the right to trample over other religions and supress other occurences of X by other people.

    Quote from extremestan »

    When debating morality, there comes a point where one has to support some premises by saying, "Well, most people agree with me."
    I agree with that, as this is somewhat aribitrary.

    Morality is needed to avoid causing pain to others and other causing pain to you (if there is no morality you can hurt others, but surely you will get caught up in it to).

    Law
    is made for moral rules that are most easily expressed. "Be a good person" is not a law is people's ideas of it vary so greatly and it is hard to analytically express.

    Quote from extremestan »
    You're right, I was asserting. But I didn't think you'd have a problem with my assertions. Most would agree that having knowledge is a kind of benefit or advantage, and most would agree that being ignorant is a kind of weakness or imperfection.

    Quote from goatchunx »
    What criterion are you using for "morally right"?

    As stan said, morallity often involves consensus as people still can not be persuaded to all agree exactly on what it is. Lets split up morality into three basic types:

    Basic Morality
    is like law needed to prevent, generally simple, bad things from happening. By logic and probability, we know that if it is allowed to go unchecked, that others will do it and we are at risk ourselves. We know what does or what might hurt us individually, and we can empathize using this knowledge to guess what hurts others. This includes things like "don't steal". This are often already laws.

    Idealistic Morality represents what an individual believes to be harmful actions that are to be avoided and helpful ones to be initiated. This is reflected in the extension of Basic Morality into areas that are not well charted or defined by much consensus(like Law). Regional/aereal/local and personal consensus and experience shape these more than global experience. You may exprience events which simultanously tend to lean you into different moral ideologies, and you try to sort it out in your head. This global experience refers things you see happening everwhere (on the news/radeio ect...) that all incline for you to hold to one viewpoint, like needless or selfesh murder is wrong).

    Religious Morality referes to moral beliefs that you have due to a belief that a higher power commanded them to be so. This power is defined as good and usually powerful, and therefore, it is to be followed. The believes are from personal encounters with the God(s), or more often of clergy or text written by men said to be this God or Gods' will.

    Now the problem with religious morality is that it is always "God said so", "He said God said so" or "this book(s) says so". These sources all lack credibility and any elements of them are backed up by no legitimate sources or very few other independant texts.

    So the premise "he said I should think" become scientifically challengable to the point of either disproof (eg. 6 day creation) beyond a reasonable doubt (well, everything could be an illusion and no one really else exists) or extreme doubt in and of itself.

    Basic Morality has strong consensus among most reasonable (not obviously crazy/delusional/pyscotic or irrational) people. Ideological morality is derived from logic, probality, experience(subjective) and the premise of Basic Morality.

    With religions morality, you either are using weak unsupported data ("he said so") or extending beyond the "consensus" of basic morality.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Ariel Sharon has massive stroke
    Quote from extremestan »
    LOL

    EDIT: This post has no content except to approve of a preceding post.


    If I posted that I would have got a spam notice or warning in mod text. Why is it always just me???

    Anyway, the question becomes: who will be the next leader? What party will win and how many sacrifices will the new leader be willing to make. Sharon may try to stay in power for longer, but his time as leader as at its twilight.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Eco Terrorists vs. Chistian Missonairies: Which is Worse?
    Quote from extremestan »
    Of course we all believe that our opinions/viewpoints/determinations are false.

    Ahh...religion is baseless unsupported, unprovable and contradicts many other religions.

    Some things, like the Sciences, are WAY more solid and realiable than religion as per logic and probability.

    If you want to argue that logic and probability are just opinions, then there are no tools to argue with and I will not even bother to reply.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Eco Terrorists vs. Chistian Missonairies: Which is Worse?
    Quote from extremestan »
    missionaries != conquistadores

    Also, destroying false religions is not wrong. So missionaries spreading a true religion are not in the wrong.


    Of course we all believe that our religion is false. Wink
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Homophobia: Is it rational, or just stupid?
    Quote from Desolation Angel »
    But I digress, you should care FE, becuase LBGT rights are your rights too. Everytime Pope Whoeverthe**** XVII says something inane about oral sex, he is talking to you too. Thank god for seperation of church and... Whats that?! Dammit!
    Nevermind.


    Quote from Desolation Angel »
    Wasn't that before "Dubya the Great and Powerful" started assinging Supreme Court Judges to sit on the bench? Confused Let's just hope no more die before the next presidental election.

    Perhaps you could tone it down a bit before Furor comes in, and like a loin he might...he is a mod know you know ;).

    Please try not to argue with emotions, whether it is tempting or or not, you must stay on focus for debate.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on U.S. Constitution does not include a "wall of separation between Church & State"
    Quote from Bogardan Mage »
    The ten commandments prominantly displayed on government property most certainly falls under the category of considering religion.

    Off couse, I agree with that.

    Quote from Bogardan Mage »
    So does a prayer in an official presidential speech.
    [/size]

    Not really, the president can have and show some faith in the white house, even during speeches, it is his right, he is the elected head of the government, not its official representative in every way. While I disagree with religion due to its high conviction to totally arbitrary beliefs, I don't mind officials showing some of it.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Eco Terrorists vs. Chistian Missonairies: Which is Worse?
    Quote from Desolation Angel »
    Don't be a dick.

    Thanks :).
    Quote from Desolation Angel »
    There is, however a legitiment argument here.

    Actually, everyone is just piling on against Eco-Terrorists, as I predicted.
    Quote from Desolation Angel »
    AND TO ****ING RESTATE IT: Which is worse: bad methods with good intentions or good methods with bad intentions. The organizations that I associate with those two consepts are just for clairity and flavour. You seem to think that the means someone uses are more important then the cause they champion. Why is that?

    In this case, it boiled down to that, in addition to the Eco-Terrorist's disordered ends. I could go into to detial, but I would no longer be mentioning terrorist and missionaries if I went further, the means vs ends (the only serious or non-obvious thing mentioned here) debate would become off-topic. If you wanted an Ends v Means debate, then you shouldn't have worded it with such a specific and somewhat inflammatory topic.
    Quote from Desolation Angel »
    Unlike some of the more dunderheaded indeviduals on this forum.

    So I am just a little dunderheaded?;)

    Anyway, I suggested closing up this thread due to the nature of the comparison and the pile on. The title seemed even offensive, depsite the fact that I despise most current(including Christianity) religions. I never attacked you, but you did attack me twice indirectly. I do realize that insultng a thread enough is an indirect attack, but given the nature of the thread, and the soft nature of my comment ("[yawn], apples and oranges"), I just don't see it that way. My comment would have been kinder if the thread had more depth.

    As T2 said, put in more substance. Also, remove any hidden agendas, like Christianity bashing and insulting comparisons that can not spark true debate. Given all the Bush/Republican/Christian bashing (like oudalla's threads) as of late, most reasonable people are just tired of it, liberal or conservative.

    It honestly didn't bother me at all this time, but please don't use "don't be a ____" phrases, as they are still insulting to most(or many) people. I was not singling you out or anything, just check the thread content.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Eco Terrorists vs. Chistian Missonairies: Which is Worse?
    Eco Terrorists. Due to use of violent means and destruction.

    Yawn....apples and oranges...:lock:
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on U.S. Constitution does not include a "wall of separation between Church & State"
    Stan haven't we talked about this before...I just can't remember the topic though.

    I think it was the pledge of allenience debate.

    I believed(and still do) that there should be a wall of sorts, but not that the constitution actually says that exactly.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Patriot Act struck down
    Well, voting against the Patriot Act right after 9/11 is political suicide. Now it is safe for Dems to challenge some of its provisions.

    The people are much of the problem, not the parties who must appease to them in order to win. The people knee-jerk react to things and want them, and then realize how bad parts of it where after a few years, then vote for however presents a "alternative".

    Whether the Dems origiionally fully supported the act, honestly, or whether is was to avoid political suicide at the time, I don't know. It was likely a mixture of both.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on President authorizes breaking into people's houses without warrants, with source
    Quote from Senori »

    Not if terrorists are hiding a bomb with their Un-American Ways and you have 24 hours (and no Jack Bauer) to rescue you.

    24 has serious tempo problems, that is why I dont watch it anymore...

    But seriously, embassies should be able to be searched based on solid leads immediately if time is limited and the threat is high, just like any other building. A report to the FISA court must be given afterwards.

    If a warrant can be obtained before hand(like 99% of the time it can), then that is what should be done. Most searches are based on vague information that likely turn out to be a hoax or wrong, so they could at least get a warrant.

    The problem is that leads are just almost never solid, and so agents will just go on wild-goose hunts while invading privacy if they dont need warrants.

    Really, this should apply to every building, even American homes, as long as the goose hunts didn't occur; but they probably always will without warrants. In that case, if agents are so sure of a bomb in a house that they are willing to break the law, risk their lives to find it, and disarm it, then they should be pardonned or given minimal punishment(suspention) as long as the leads were solid.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on US mosques--radiation checks
    Quote from BBC »
    At its peak, three vehicles in Washington monitored 120 sites a day.

    Wow, those must have been some very specific leads.
    Quote from Kashmyr »
    Don't they currently have a suspect in custody who was trying to (allegedly) set off a dirty bomb (i.e., a bomb which is set to release radiactive material) in NYC?

    How are you sure that the two are related?
    Quote from Kashmyr »
    Again, any excuse to go after the Bush administration.

    Not sure who that was addressed to.

    I am sure that if you just search everywhere, that yes, you will find something important.
    Quote from BBC »
    Federal officials cited by US News and World Report said that monitoring on public property, such as driveways and parking lots, was legal and that warrants were not needed for the kind of radiation sampling it conducted.

    As I said, for now, it is just annoying for Muslims, and I hope this is as close as they will be scrutinized.

    I suppose, that given the threat of "dirty bombs", scanning Mosques is not so bad when you have actual leads, just like any other structure. But these scans seem a lot more arbitrary than that.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on President authorizes breaking into people's houses without warrants, with source
    As I said, and Senori gave the exact lines(which I read two days ago), it has to be between foriegn powers and not domestic as far as the 1978 FISA goes.

    Quote from Senori »

    - the FISA court did grant warrants to perform surveilance and whatnot on Mr. Ames
    - the FISA was amended after the Ames case to make searches require court order.


    Indeed, another issue is the current idea of ignoring the easy court warrant and court checkup(after 72 hours or whatever) that usually is not a problem anyway.

    Quote from Prizm »
    Voice of All: See the above Executive Order. I concede that my original quotation was not completely in accordance with my more sensational thread title, for which I plead forgiveness.

    Yes, the title was markedly off. Nevertheless the response to the thread by at least two users(Hispanic remarks and the **** post) were WAY unexceptable, and if any consistancy is applied on these boards, the later should get a warning.

    Still, an apology is an apology, can't say no to that.:)

    ...But did you really need to prove that there are hordes of reationary liberals in here who don't think for themselves, or at all? Haven't Furor and Extremestan demonstrated this many times without even trying?

    BTW, that reminds me, semi-protection for Wikipedia is working pretty well, George Bush has gotten only one vandalism in the last few days. No more "Bush rapes 14 year olds" or "Bush hates black people"(mainly during Katrina) or pictures of genitals....thank GOD.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on US mosques--radiation checks
    Indeed, the slippery slope of a year ago is only getting steeper. It seems that increasingly being Muslim is a reason to lose some of your privacy/legal rights.

    Now it is mainly just annoying, although the Guantanamo issue is worse then "annoying". I hope it won't get worse.

    I do agree with what David Brooks of the Newshour said concerning the contraversy in the US of searching without warrants:

    "If another 9/11 happens, you know that all of this will just go right out the window"

    Unfortunetely, he is right, as knee-jerk reactions will dominate the polls.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on US mosques--radiation checks
    Here is the BBC link:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4557224.stm

    I kind of dont like this, but on the other hand, no personal/emotional/private information is being collected, nor do the people inside even know about it unless the spying was specifically leaked.

    I would not care if someone spyed on people fairly randomly for heat/radiation checks from a distance without ever entering the building.

    ON the other hand, having now known about it, if I was one of the mosque's attendants, I would feel very irritated and disrespected, not just because of being spyed on in a holy place, but for being singled out because it was a Muslim place of prayer.

    What does everyone else think?
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.