[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Morals that are 'relative' lead to laws and ethics that are similarly 'relative' and anything is justifiable when you simply redefine morality to allow whatever you wish to allow.

Yes, that is the down-side. The upside is that relative morals allow you to adapt to circumstance more readily.

My point of view is that good morals were originally good ideas that evolved to habits, that evolved to tradition, that became morals. Societies with bad morals deselect themselves. Canada's morals are good because they have produced, for us, a successful society. You view morality as "good versus evil" whereas I view morals as "good versus bad." Good can mean virtuous (in your sense) or effective (in my sense), like being "good" at hockey.

That's my view, though I completely respect yours.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

And right there is the fundamental reason why Canadians tend to have a hard time understanding Americans. You think your rights are a grant from your benevolent rulers while we see rights as something that are inherently ours and we delegate certain of those rights to our government. The remainder of those rights are reserved for the people or to the states.

The difference being that in our understanding the state has no authority to take away that which has not been delegated to it. In your understanding the state has every authority to take away rights which originated with the state and that have been granted to you for the time being.

Yes, I've been down this road many times with other Americans. It's right there in your Declaration of Independence: "that [men] are endowed by their Creator with certian inalienable Rights." My problem is that no one can tell me where these rights reside. When a newborn comes into the world, where are these rights? He was apparently born with them, but no one can show me where they are or what they look like. Since I require empirical evidence, the only "rights" that exist for me are those that are written down somewhere.

$1:

Actually, the Holocaust was never deemed illegal. While individuals were found guilty of war crimes the great crime of the Holocaust was never actually found to be a crime.

Interesting. I did not know that. The Holocaust is a good example of "good versus evil" and "good versus bad." Many regard the Nazis as evil. I think their morals were "bad" because, at a time when they were fighting a war on--what?--three fronts, they spent all this time and energy taking productive citizens and killing them. It's alike a cannibal eating his arm when he gets hungry--yes it may fill you up for the time being, but overall, not a very successful strategy to stay alive. So Nazi morals were "bad" because they did not result in a successful society.

Hope some of the above makes sense. Probably not.

[Mustang1]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Interesting. I did not know that. The Holocaust is a good example of "good versus evil" and "good versus bad."

That is interesting - I suppose that begs the question about the "crimes against humanity" charges at Nuremberg.

"Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated" London Charter - 'Crimes against humanity"

[BartSimpson]

Mustang, I agree that what took place were, indeed, crimes against humanity but what still stands out to me from Nuremburg is that while individuals were rightfully convicted of wrongdoing the tribunal did not declare the body of laws empowering the Holocaust to be illegal. That's a little point of history my IDF friends point out to me as their reasoning for not exactly trusting that a repeat of the Holocaust can't happen.

[Mustang1]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Mustang, I agree that what took place were, indeed, crimes against humanity but what still stands out to me from Nuremburg is that while individuals were rightfully convicted of wrongdoing the tribunal did not declare the body of laws empowering the Holocaust to be illegal. That's a little point of history my IDF friends point out to me as their reasoning for not exactly trusting that a repeat of the Holocaust can't happen.

Actually, while the actions were clearly outlined as contravening international law, the Nuremberg trials were instrumental in establishing the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which saw to it that domestic legislation couldn't be use as a rationalization for genocide.

It should also be noted that the term "genocide" (defined in CPPCG) was in fact used at Nuremberg when referring to the original defendants - They, "conducted deliberate and systematic genocide – namely, the extermination of racial and national groups."

[2Cdo]

DerbyX DerbyX:

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Your post reads like an autobiography.

You let me know when I post anything as violent as some of the shit you guys post about muslims.

I don't advocate nuking their countries or killing them because of their religion.

Pity you can't say the same.

I've never advocated nuking them or killing them all, but you have insulted and derided Christians repeatedly while giving Islam a pass for their atrocities.

Just like you call down Conservative supporters who always vote Conservative as party hacks, but think of yourself as some enlightened person who, by his own admission, always votes Liberal.

As I said before, you are both a party hack and a hypocrite and thus not worth the time of day.

[CharlieHammer]

Science portrays all that relgion does in its macro way, but science does it in a micro way. Perhaps religion and science are always in such great conflict because science will bring us closer to God in life, whereas religion ultimately brings us closer to Him in death.

Let us hope that the latter supposition is not sped up so much that we cannot enjoy the potential beauty of the former.

[Lemmy]

CharlieHammer CharlieHammer:

Science portrays all that relgion does in its macro way, but science does it in a micro way. Perhaps religion and science are always in such great conflict because science will bring us closer to God in life, whereas religion ultimately brings us closer to Him in death.

Let us hope that the latter supposition is not sped up so much that we cannot enjoy the potential beauty of the former.

I'm very glad to welcome another recreational marijuana user to CKA.

[DerbyX]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

I've never advocated nuking them or killing them all, but you have insulted and derided Christians repeatedly while giving Islam a pass for their atrocities.

Yes you have and not only that you have referred to them all as pig fuckers and pedophiles and I called you on that very thing. While I despise christianity I don't attack the people the way you and others do and I certainly don't hold the violent beliefs you and others do.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Just like you call down Conservative supporters who always vote Conservative as party hacks, but think of yourself as some enlightened person who, by his own admission, always votes Liberal.

If you had in fact ever learned to read properly you'll note that a long time ago I favoured a cooperation between the Libs and CPC until Harper showed his true colours. As of the past few years I have also repeatedly favoured both a merger and coalition with the NDP and posted criteria that would cause me to switch, criteria that the CPC would never ever meet. I've also posted that just because the Greens don't win a seat they still have good ideas and deserve input.

OTOH several Libs on this forum have stated that any formal coalition with the NDP will cause them to rip up their card. That doesn't make them party hacks though just exposes your ignorance.

2Cdo 2Cdo:

As I said before, you are both a party hack and a hypocrite and thus not worth the time of day.

Argument lost when name calling was resorted too.

[CharlieHammer]

Science cannot win out over religion because science is religion and religion is science.

[Thanos]

$1:

OTOH several Libs on this forum have stated that any formal coalition with the NDP will cause them to rip up their card. That doesn't make them party hacks though just exposes your ignorance.

That makes them awesome people who know where to draw the line on how far they want their party to go to regain power. And it's nice to see enough Libs saying a resounding 'no' to merging with the left kook fringe. I thought I'd never ever say this but better a majority Liberal government again someday, warts and all, than some misbegotten two-headed monster where Jack Layton has any say in policy. Might as well shut the economy down altogether if that ever happens. Like the wise man once said:

The middle of the road is all the usable surface. The extremes of left and right are in the gutters. - Dwight David Eisenhower

[Annihilator]

CharlieHammer CharlieHammer:

Science cannot win out over religion because science is religion and religion is science.

That is so wrong I don't even know what to start with.

Okay, I'll explain you the difference.


With science, you use critical reasoning and experiments to find facts. With those facts, you come to a conclusion.


With religion, you pull a conclusion out of thin air. Then, you make up facts to support your conclusion.


As you can see, they're complete opposites.

[CharlieHammer]

And what are facts but an ever-growing tower of knowledge rising into the universe? Our ancestors made a leap of faith ages ago, and now science looks to bridge that gap. Both seek one thing: the ultimate truth.

Religion is but a theory yet to be proven a law.

[Proculation]

There's the battle of Evermore.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Annihilator Annihilator:

With religion, you pull a conclusion out of thin air. Then, you make up facts to support your conclusion.
As you can see, they're complete opposites.

So then AGW is a religion?

[Proculation]

racists