j_b

just wait, any time now this bunch of hypocrites are due to wrap themselves in the flag and talk about freedom of the individual. Sean Penn is great.

perhaps you'd care to explain what you mean ... or is it that it still hurts? why don't you reply in spray. I can't guarantee I'll comment though.

some would say the same thing about missionary work

I don't need to interpret. Anybody can read. no. you are saying this not me. I did not claim anything about my morals. On the contrary, I said that assessing human rights violation had nothing to do with morality. I am asking you again: does a slave need morality to decide whether his condition is wrong? (and don't obfuscate by asking the meaning of wrong!) His statement amounted to a justification for slavery. This much is clear enough ....

everybody can read by themselves what you wrote about slavery: "from a white owner's standpoint it sounds right to me: I'm getting my fields harvested, putting some people to work, and making good money with minimal cash outlay. Plus, I get a little strange on the side every once in a while"

you are quite right of course. But it is always a pleasure to expose in full light what they really stand for.

so are you entitled to the labor of your slaves? hypothetically speaking ...

i did! so did you know right away whether being beat up was right or wrong? or did you need to define it first?

the absurdity of the argument is mind-boggling. So declaring slavery is objectively wrong ultimately amounts to being pro-slavery because it deprives the slave owner of his freedom to do as he pleases? you guys are out to lunch.

so when the schoolyard bully beat you up to steal your lunch, did you need a philosophical dictionary to decide whether it was right or wrong? oh wait, perhaps you were the bully ...

gasp .... well this puts in perspective your ad hoc political philosophy. You once defended yourself (or your buddy) of being proponents of child labor but now you show yourself to be an apologist for slavery. I guess we are getting somewhere ...

I am not discussing slavery but debunking the convenient argument that assessing human rights violation is a matter of relative moral values.

ok without going into details, do slaves willfully accept their condition? no. Do they think their condition is wrong? yes. Would you think it wrong if put in their place? yes. Do slaves need to refer to moral values to declare their situation wrong? No. So why should you need to refer to morality to oppose abuse of fundamental rights? rights of the individual are not an abstract idea that one can relatively agree with or not. They are fact.

I am not sure if it qualifies as a moderate but Air Roof in Leav. is great jamming, and wild climbing to boot. My angle on this topic is a 'best crack pitch' has to be jammed (vs laybacking), sustained, steep, and hopefully provide variety (or if not varied, have incredible continuity), and great location (exposure, etc ..).

there is plenty of objective evidence that slavery is wrong, whether it is 'morally' wrong is apparently something for you to worry about. sorry, I don't see any morality issue here, if you see one it is your problem which you'll have to support.

nope how they lived, etc is the objective evidence. You are making the assertion that it being wrong is based on morals/faith, which you have to support. Repeating it won't prove anything. again you are one claiming there is a moral standard. I only see an 'objective material decision'. Where is your premise?

No. First you'd have to show how abortion, for example, is not first and foremost an 'objective material decision'. you'd first have to prove that slavery being wrong is based on faith and not experimental evidence.

sorry dude, your or ashcroft's 'beliefs' are not a valid basis for an argument.

when ashcroft takes positions on abortion, contraception, etc .. (as outlined by Ian) it is based on his system of belief which is fundamentalist religion. Rational people don't refer to god to make policy decision. Rational/analytical people don't have to prove faith-based types wrong because the onus is on faith-based people to prove belief in the supernatural is a possible basis for a rational decision (basic scientific method). Anyhow we'd first need a premise (i.e. suggestive experimental data) to make the question of a faith-based morality worth considering. Is this clear enough?

I forgot your concept of freedom included that of driving a guzzler at will and securing by all means the resources needed to sustain such habit. actually I think everyone has the right to self determination including that of not imitating us.

He does not have to. He is not the one making an irrational claim entirely based on faith. I am sure you'd look favorably upon anyone making governmental decisions based on a system of belief without any factual basis (like say aliens are prominently among us today or cabbage is the only food you need). After all according to your standards you could not 'prove' him wrong either ... our right to live is threatened by our own predatorial policies toward other nations, not by some supposed outside threat. I fail to see how profiling everyone will address our government being hijacked by an extremist minority.

well, what do you know? no impassionate cry for freedom and democracy from our fellow right-wingers as we are being stripped of our civil rights. I guess they are too giddy at the thought of all these ultra conservative rollbacks mandated by 18% of the voting age population (35% participation at last mid-term elec.).

quote: I am cautious, but erring on the side of securityyeah right, we could not even get you to agree to register your guns but now your reasonable self thinks systematic profiling is in order ....

quote: Well, I've come to the conclusion that Islam's claim to be a peaceful religion is so much crap. [....] Pax Americana. Brought to you by a suppression of radical Islam. By whatever means are necessary. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=001222

we can all feel better now: http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/22/offbeat.bush.not.moron.reut/