paranoid yet?

[RobBob]

Okay, Goat. Let's talk about mountains. When you get really cold, do you ponder the relativity of the coldness, or the relativity of how your body senses it?

[freeclimb9]

"you can tell me how many were slaves, you can tell me what happened to them and how hard they worked and why they died or lived, but I'm interested in the objective, non societally based "wrong" we'll use for the determination of the physical evidence showing it is."

Uh, how's about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm thinking being a slave would seriously dampen a person's ability to pursue Happiness.

[j_b]

you can tell me how many were slaves, you can tell me what happened to them and how hard they worked and why they died or lived, but I'm interested in the objective, non societally based "wrong" we'll use for the determination of the physical evidence showing it is.

 

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.

 

Same goes for abortion. It can be done, it can be measured, every physical issue surrounding it can be quanitified and measured.... but give me the gold standard for wether it is right or wrong so we can evaluate what is seen in the experiments.

 

again you are one claiming there is a moral standard. I only see an 'objective material decision'. Where is your premise?

[MtnGoat]

"Secondly, there may well have been a religious background to the founders but the case is pretty strong that they made every effort to prevent official recognition of any religion, namely, Christianity. "

 

Had the founders seen the platform of the modern Dems OR Repubs, I posit that they would have been seen just how powermad for individual compliance non supernatural moral systems can get and added more restrictions to the state.

 

IMO, that's because they had not been exposed to the degree to which humanism would assume the gap left by the decline of classical religion.

 

Had they seen the assumption of religions role by the left in determining right and wrong. Using arbitrary unprovables every bit as baseless as anything Christians believe. And it's justification in taking control from individuals just as they described for classical religion, you would have seen a far more detailed inclusion of libertarian and classically liberal idelogy in the constitution.

 

Modern "progressivism" has every hallmark of religion. it assumes universal application of it's principles based on no moral objectivity about right and wrong, but the say so of it's adherents. It assumes everyone must serve that which the whole determines, assumes that their lives should be ordered by it's unprovable morality, gives us saints and sins, demands control of individuals bodies, choices, and lives, and in fact encompasses every area of life, just like the church did before it.

 

 

 

[MtnGoat]

Ok, robbob, good enough.

 

When I'm out and it's raining on a crappy fogged in ridgeline and the rocks are all slippery....I think, damn it's cold.

 

I feel cold and thats good enough for me, and i don't need to decide to legislate someone else must feel cold the same way I feel it, or view it the same way I view it, or try and deal with it how I deal with it.

[RobBob]

I feel cold and thats good enough for me, and i don't need to decide to legislate someone else must feel cold the same way I feel it, or view it the same way I view it, or try and deal with it how I deal with it.

 

Gotcha!! Now I can sleep tonight.

[allthumbs]

Back to being paranoid - We, as the American people, can assert ourselves once we are past this danger to regain our right to privacy in the mail and on the Internet. However, until then I totally support "reading" the mail to ferret these bastards out. I have nothing to hide, and I understand what it takes to catch these fanatics. They operate in cells and often don't even know who each other are. Now exactly how would you propose we catch these guys? Certain civil liberties must be suspended to catch them. And in a free country, just as we did after World War II when there was sweeping censorship, the American people said, "OK - the war is over - so is censorship."

[Greg_W]

What was so 'wrong' about slavery? They had three hots and a cot, we got our work done cheap. Oh, except that whole "inalienable rights" thing. Where does that come from? Oh, from the BELIEF that we all have rights as individuals that are inherent to our humanity. That is called "Natural Rights"; adhering to this theory is called BELIEVING in the "Natural Rights Theory." There is no empirical evidence showing the existence of rights or the rights themselves. It is a belief in a system.

[RobBob]

I want all you kids in the audience to note that none of us on this thread today have threatened to punch, spindle, mutilate or violate each other, despite our obvious difference of opinions.

[freeclimb9]

"three hots and a cot"?

No, no. Not modern-day prisoners.

[allthumbs]

I want all you kids in the audience to note that none of us on this thread today have threatened to punch, spindle, mutilate or violate each other, despite our obvious difference of opinions.

 

stfu you ignoramus. how bout' i come over there and thump yo arse with a big stick?

[MtnGoat]

"You are making the assertion that it being wrong is based on morals/faith, which you have to support. "

 

There is no physical evidence that slavery is morally right or wrong. Does that count as support?

 

"I only see an 'objective material decision'. Where is your premise?"

 

That abortion is a material decision is a given. That it has moral dimension is external to it's physicality. My premise shall be that only the person making this material decison can actually know what it's moral value is to themselves.

 

[RobBob]

trask,

I'd give you the spankin' yo mama never dealt ya.

[Greg_W]

Kan't we all just get along???

 

Nah, fuck 'em all but six and use them for pallbearers

 

[allthumbs]

trask,

I'd give you the spankin' yo mama never dealt ya.

 

...you'd probably get all excited and dribble down your leg.

[RobBob]

trask, as you can see, my mama is very supportive of my fighting career...

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

That's your mother? Looks like Iggy Pop in one of them Russian fur hats!

[allthumbs]

How'd you like somma what I got cookin' Punk?

 

[RobBob]

let me introduce you to an old swim buddy and his girlfriend ...

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Is that Caveman on the left in the fabulous shimmery pants and comfortably stylish boots?

[MntnrMichael]

Is Mr. T wearing a pair of Sorels?

[RobBob]

[sk]

LMAO

[iain]

hmm I don't see any socks under those Sorels either....STINKFOOT

[j_b]

There is no physical evidence that slavery is morally right or wrong. Does that count as support?

 

there is plenty of objective evidence that slavery is wrong, whether it is 'morally' wrong is apparently something for you to worry about.

 

That abortion is a material decision is a given. That it has moral dimension is external to it's physicality. My premise shall be that only the person making this material decison can actually know what it's moral value is to themselves.

 

sorry, I don't see any morality issue here, if you see one it is your problem which you'll have to support.