Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

Mainiac: I would caution you that there is no such thing as a universal moral code.

What our culture finds reprehensible, has no bearing and should never be considered to have bearing, on what another culture finds reprehensible.

We outlaw child predation in our nation.
They outlaw women wearing normal clothes in theirs.

The parallel is stark.  We dont have the right to tell them their business, anymore than they do to tell us ours.

[smjjames]

So howbout that NY primary, huh?  Is it one of them winner-take-all or is it a proportional one, cause I can't seem to remember.

It's a 'winner take most' I believe, with anybody getting above 50% the state vote getting all of the statewide delegates while the winner of each congressional district will get 3 per district.

[mainiac]

Mainiac: I would caution you that there is no such thing as a universal moral code.

What our culture finds reprehensible, has no bearing and should never be considered to have bearing, on what another culture finds reprehensible.

We outlaw child predation in our nation.
They outlaw women wearing normal clothes in theirs.

The parallel is stark.  We dont have the right to tell them their business, anymore than they do to tell us ours.

I find it strange that you urge me against universal codes when you have laid out four of them so far in this conversation.

My preferred moral framework is the veil of ignorance as described by Rawls.  We balance moral interventions against existential angst.  We should be aware of that balance, not pretend it doesn't exist.

[wierd]

The democrat primary is still neck and neck.

Discounting superdelegates, the two are only some 250 delegates apart.

Speaking of-- did you hear about clinton's aide and his position on declassifying UFO documents? Can the election get any more bizzare?


Mainiac:  The problem with your view, is that it allows the mighty to comit attrocious acts, if the mighty outnumber the weak.  it is functionally no different from mob rule.

[Criptfeind]

As opposed to what? Letting everyone commit atrocities all the time? Your way doesn't stop the mighty or the weak. At least mainiacs way has a chance to stop the weak if the mighty are 'right' (Even if there isn't a right, but whatever.)(although as we can obviously see it's not actually working.)

Edit: It's really funny, because I agree with like, the actions Wierd is purposing (ie, no actions) but just like, philosophically, mainiac seems. You know, to have a point.

[mainiac]

Mainiac:  The problem with your view, is that it allows the mighty to comit attrocious acts, if the mighty outnumber the weak.  it is functionally no different from mob rule.

Dude, it's a little more sophisticated then that.

[Orange Wizard]

Mainiac:  The problem with your view, is that it allows the mighty to comit attrocious acts, if the mighty outnumber the weak.  it is functionally no different from mob rule.

So we're just going to let millions of people suffer on principle. I'm sure they'll be chuffed.

[wierd]

I realize this is a shocker for you, but how's this.

Dont interject your views on others, and through such, dont condemn their cultural stance on women's rights, as we see them.

Basically, let them wear all the burkhas they want.
When they try to make our women wear burkhas, THEN we tell them no, inside our own national and cultural borders. Likewise, should we try to tell them to take them off, they are well in their rights to arrest you inside their country for violating their laws.

Thats what the whole "soveriegn nation" thing is about.

Mainiac: Lipstick on a pig does not make it a supermodel.

[wierd]

Mainiac:  The problem with your view, is that it allows the mighty to comit attrocious acts, if the mighty outnumber the weak.  it is functionally no different from mob rule.

So we're just going to let millions of people suffer on principle. I'm sure they'll be chuffed.

I see you are embracing the ideology of an obnoxious christian.  How "forward thinking" of you, insisting on saving people's souls like that, even if they dont want it.

[smjjames]

The democrat primary is still neck and neck.

Discounting superdelegates, the two are only some 250 delegates apart.

Speaking of-- did you hear about clinton's aide and his position on declassifying UFO documents? Can the election get any more bizzare?

I wonder if the Democrat convention will end up being as exciting as the Republican one? And yeah, I saw that article earlier, it IS silly season.

Also, Carson talks about Trump's 'Twitter Problem' like Trump has a drug problem.

edit: 6 new replies in between, ack.

[mainiac]

I see you are embracing the ideology of an obnoxious christian.  How "forward thinking" of you, insisting on saving people's souls like that, even if they dont want it.

Now you are laying out a fifth argument and an extremely tenuous one at that.  The veil of ignorance is deliberately agnostic.

[smjjames]

I see you are embracing the ideology of an obnoxious christian.  How "forward thinking" of you, insisting on saving people's souls like that, even if they dont want it.

Now you are laying out a fifth argument and an extremely tenuous one at that.  The veil of ignorance is deliberately agnostic.

I think he may be on the sixth or seventh now....

[wierd]

agnostic?  The positions I have been presented with all extend from a standpoint that the west's views are simply superior, even though they deal with highly contentious issues.

We *assert* in our culture, that all people are equal and have equal rights. On what basis is that assertion really founded?

We arent arguing about facts here. we are arguing about conflicting ideologies. If their cultural ideology works for them, and they like it, we have no grounds to demand they change them.  and vise versa.

The fact that there are more of us sounds a lot like the justifications used for wiping out the native americans-- agnostic indeed.

[Orange Wizard]

We *assert* in our culture, that all people are equal and have equal rights. On what basis is that assertion really founded?

It's objectively the best for everyone. Would you rather be a slave or free? Lacking rights, or having them?

I see you are embracing the ideology of an obnoxious christian.  How "forward thinking" of you, insisting on saving people's souls like that, even if they dont want it.

Duuuuuuuuuude

Dude really

wow

these are enlightenment ideals dammit

[mainiac]

We arent arguing about facts here.

No we are arguing facts.  The specific facts we are arguing is what my beliefs are.  I am arguing that my beliefs are agnostic towards christian theology while you are telling me that are derived from christian theology.

Now seeing as you claim you dont believe in judging other peoples beliefs, isn't it absurd you are telling me what my beliefs are?