paranoid yet?

[MtnGoat]

"I also have degrees in science, so I tend to need proof or at least suggestive evidence to believe things hence my difficulty with "faith". "

 

Then I cannot see why you have difficulty with the idea that morality is innately belief based wether it's based in God, society, or anything else which is arbitrary and unprovable from bow to stern.

 

What I see here is a lot of finger pointing about how those darned other people are using arbitrary views of god to determine how they want to live, while supposedly non religious people do *exactly* the same thing, on the same basis, they say so and they all believe it.

 

They do not wish to cede the false high ground they stand on because that places their morality on the same quicksand as the christians stand on.

 

I don't have a problem with this because I'll readily admit I can't prove the Christians are wrong, and that I stand on the same quicksand they do.

[allthumbs]

Iain, you ignorant SLUT

 

never bash an american's god given right to drive the real deal.

 

anyone driving an electric pussy wagon has a tiny dick.

[Greg_W]

Calling a form of transportation "pussy" reveals a lot. do people really feel they are badass by driving an f-350 or inadequate driving a yugo? That stuff makes me laugh. Americans are stupid sometimes.

 

hehehe, gotcha! Here's some horsecock for you, Iain:

[RobBob]

Calling a form of transportation "pussy" reveals a lot.

In high school, my standard reply was "you are what you eat."

[allthumbs]

mine was, "your breath smells like the gurl you just ate"

[MtnGoat]

j_b

 

"He is not the one making an irrational claim entirely based on faith. "

 

Who is making what irrational claim based entirely on faith? I can't figure out what you're referencing here.

 

"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)."

 

Of course I wouldn't. But I don't need to use their "religous" nature to argue policy, because I'll be using mine to do so. What is provable and objective stands apart from religion, and can be debated on that basis between equals *both* with their own faith based morality, whatever it is. I will not rest my arguments on my accusation of their religion, but what is observable.

 

"After all according to your standards you could not 'prove' him wrong either ..."

 

Precisely, which is why all I would ask is that they support growing the cabbage for the aliens and not tell me I must do so as well. I can't prove they're wrong but neither can they prove they're right, and in the absence of proof lives faith. Which is where each should be able to serve their own gods, wether Christian, alien, or "progressive".

 

 

[allthumbs]

Jesus Christ Mtn. Goat, were you the alpha dawg debate nerd in school? I'll bet you really had the hotties chasing your Einstein ass. hahaha lick it, it's good

[MtnGoat]

"I will try to line-item in a tedious fashion as you love,"

 

just one or two will do.

 

"Would you mind being tried for manslaughter by a judge who's kid was killed by an unsecured handgun? Is there direct evidence that he will be biased against you, a gun owner?"

 

No, there is not. Since trials are open and recorded his actions would show evidence if there was bias or not, and it's precisely such direct actions I am asking for with regard to Ashcroft. Additionally, since juries make the decisions, but their deliberations are secret, in that case since no actions could be reviewed, I would have such a juror dismissed.

 

[iain]

Ashcroft freely admits that if he could pass a single law, it would be to outlaw abortion in cases of rape and incest.

 

He attempted several times to restrict a woman's legal right to choose an abortion by finding cases in which that was not the main issue and forcing them upward through various layers of appeals to the Supreme Court.

 

When a federal court ordered St. Louis to present plans for voluntary desegregation of public schools, Ashcroft resisted. The court eventually had to threaten contempt of court if it failed to meet the deadline.

The judge was quoted, "the court can draw only one conclusion -- the state has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of the court."

 

He is on record wanting to ban birth control.

 

He opposes sex education vehemently.

 

I am not suggesting for a second that he is not entitled to these opinions. I am just saying it is not appropriate to have an attorney general who is so extreme on such delicate hot-button issues that clearly divide this country, enforcing our laws through the department of justice. There are plenty of more moderate republicans who would be better suited for the job, rather than this backward individual who divides the country with this prehistoric stuff.

 

MtnGoat: I can barely tell what you are saying in your last post so I can't really give a good response. I would just say I am a bit of a realist and I'm not going to do anything because some ancient dusty book or scrolls of commandments told me to. I would expect the same from my government, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[allthumbs]

who the fuk cares

who the fuk cares

who the fuk cares

ditto.....ad nauseum

[MtnGoat]

"Anybody notice that it looks like the folks who are so staunchly defending Ashcroft appear to be the fundamentalists here, and are attempting to do so by telling us the sky is green and the grass is blue?"

 

Who is telling you the sky is green here? We're asking you for actual evidence your belief his religion conflicts with his job, not your assertion of same based in your view of his views, and thats "fundamentalist"? Fundamentally reasonable, in my world.

 

"I'd be more inclined to listen to someone who is not staunchly religious use practical logic in defending Ashcroft and his record."

 

That's what I'm trying to do, and I'm seeing precious little actual reference to any record anyone actually has, of his illegally using religion in his job.

 

When one persists in ignoring the role of their arbitrary, unprovable belief system, in critiquing those of others, they leave a pretty gaping hole in their argument.

[RobBob]

trask,

I was going to suggest yesterday that Mtngoat find a high school debating club to spar with. That would be a group that would take him up on debating whether the sky is green, and do it with earnest relish.

Before, I believed that the Goat was just sparring with us. But now, I think he really believes his crap.

[iain]

Well he has once again worn me down to the point I just don't care anymore.

[RobBob]

Iain,

I vote Republican, voted for GWB, but I use my brain in decision-making. You are right-on about Ashcroft. He would be right at home as a fundamentalist Muslim.

[allthumbs]

The goat is not sparing with anyone. His mouth is on 'autopilot' and like his asshole, is spewing shit.

 

Earth to Goat, come home and shut down the program.

[Greg_W]

Before, I believed that the Goat was just sparring with us. But now, I think he really believes his crap.

Comments like this piss me off. I don't agree with a lot of people on this board, but I still respect your opinion as your own. Why would one of us bother to defend positions that we don't believe? I find it hilarious that you liberal pukes think, "he can't ACTUALLY believe that!!!" How fucking stupid is that? Are you liberals the only ones who are "enlightened" in this country? Give me a break.

[allthumbs]

Greg, my point is that these arguments go on, and on, and on, and get nowhere. Especially goats...they're like he's pissing into the wind and he hears nothing. Left or right has nothing to do with narrowmindedness.

 

I realize that I don't have to read this shit if it bothers me. But it facinates me that some folks are so fuking anal. I read in amazement.

[iain]

the "liberal puke" you are responding to just made clear he is a moderate republican.

[Greg_W]

Well, all you other liberal pukes then. So there...

 

I must admit that my eyes begin to blur on the Goat's marathon posts, but that doesn't mean that his points aren't valid. Also, I think, when confronted with an overwhelming counter-argument, those with extreme liberal ideals can't back up what they believe. In that respect, I like the tactic as it exposes many flaws in their belief system.

Edited December 4, 2002 by Greg_W

[MtnGoat]

Thanks for putting in some time Iain, though we disagree I respect that.

 

"I am not suggesting for a second that he is not entitled to these opinions. I am just saying it is not appropriate to have an attorney general who is so extreme on such delicate hot-button issues that clearly divide this country, enforcing our laws through the department of justice."

 

I don't agree with him on any of his abortion stances, first off, but as you point out it is his right to hold them, and it's also his right to use use his views within the boundary of law, to work towards them. Wether or not they are extreme, as even I believe they are, does not make his appointment innapropriate in my eyes, because thats the nature of politics.

 

Extreme is in the eyes of the beholder, myself included, and while I find the religious extremism inherent in progressive politics for example, indefensible for myself, I would never claim religion should disqualify them or that it's inappropriate to appoint them. Changing the nature and content of govt is what appointing people with ideologies is all about!

 

That's why we must have a clearer idea of why to argue policy, using what means, and what we intend to force other citizens to do.

 

All this "you're extreme and we're not" is, is arguing over who holds the whip, using arguments that can never be resolved as long as they remain in faith from either side.

 

I disagree with Ashcroft on abortion because my faith says he does not own any humans body, or mind, save his own. I disagree with progressive politics for *precisely* the same reasons whenever they decide who shall be forced to serve their end goals.

 

"I would just say I am a bit of a realist and I'm not going to do anything because some ancient dusty book or scrolls of commandments told me to. I would expect the same from my government, but that doesn't seem to be the case here."

 

I can appreciate that entirely, I would like to be able to be free from dusty scrolls *and* those who made up their belief system 100, 50, or 10 years ago as well where it relates to my service to their ends.

 

Edited December 4, 2002 by MtnGoat

[RobBob]

Greg, what crawled up your ass? Yesterday I was thinking that you were one of the people on this board that was halfway civil. This morning I was greeted by

Congrats, RobBob; this is the stupidest fucking thing I've read in awhile.

Now you claim to be pissed off by something I write, and you don't even understand what I'm saying. Kiss my heinie.

[allthumbs]

You're lovin' this aren't you Goat. You're givin me the stink eye and rambling just to drive me crazy. You bastard.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Rob, on a totally unrelated topic, is your avatar a boxing platypus?

 

[Greg_W]

RobBob - Sorry, I'm feeling militant today. Changed medications. Usually I try and be civil because I enjoy the spirited debate that ensues, but I don't mind being the asshole either. I've got a few hot-buttons, just like everyone else.

 

Spray on Rob

[MtnGoat]

waaa, what a bunch of crying.

 

folks get called on their belief systems and start dodging and avoiding the issue. robbob engages the beliefs of those darned religious people, but cannot and will not defend his own belief system, insisting that doing so means red is blue. but I'm "narrowminded" because I expect a cogent defense.

 

Now that's some kind of open minded viewpoint at work there, it can't even tolerate examination of it's own first principles. How enlightened can you get, self knowledge and open mindedness is what everyone *else* needs!