|
Post by Ed on Jul 28, 2004 20:18:14 GMT -5
If some arm twisting (torture) resulted in information that saved the lives of thousands of Democrats, would it be acceptable to you?
Is partial birth abortion still legal?
Your missing something fundamental. If I read 5,000 good reviews of the Satanic Bible (for example), I would NEVER think it was an insightful and wonderful book. Everyone has a frame of reference or worldview by which they interpret truth.
Really? Maybe you should check on some of the things you “know”. Its cold in Antarctica. There are black holes in the universe. There is a God. The Earth’s atmosphere is primarily Nitrogen.
Have you ever seen any of the above? One of our brain functions is to intake information so as to reach conclusions. This is a fundamental part of life because we cannot “see” everything. It is perfectly acceptable for intelligent people to choose the experts they trust, listen to them, and reach a conclusion.
Would you be able to disqualify the Satanic Bible without reading it?
My initial opinion has not changed, and I believe it is correct based on the documented errors in MM’s film. Everyone knows that MM hates Bush to the core, and therefore is prone to twisting the truth to suit his own agenda.
You didn’t really answer my last question. [glow=red,2,300]Are you opposed to murder? Would you like to impose that value on others? [/glow] You value honesty, would you like to impose your value on your spouse? You value life, would you like to impose your value on the guy hiding in the bushes as you jog past? You value truth, would you like to impose your value on your college professor or religious leader?
No one can legislate morality, yet every social law is an attempt to do just that. By saying you would never impose your values on someone: you should never vote, never tell your child “no”, and never give your dog a bath.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 29, 2004 0:53:20 GMT -5
If some arm twisting (torture) resulted in information that saved the lives of thousands of Democrats, would it be acceptable to you? Why not just ask the question - Do the ends justify the means? Should we stoop to the level of the people we call terrorists if it satisfies our goals? How low are you willing to stoop? Killing and torturing members of the family is thought to be an effective way to get people to talk. If we have to do that to save lives is it ok? Saving Democrats is not the issue. Standing up for principles, taking the high moral path, and doing the ethical thing is the goal I think the US should set. Unfortunatly it is. No, my point was that you had already made up your mind. The reviews were chosen to support your view. No. I have no idea what it contains. Documented errors or a misrepresentation of the facts? Do you have some examples of facts that were incorrect? I am opposed to killing. In some cases the decision to kill or not is left up to the individual. Abortion and war are two examples. Although I believe killing in these cases is wrong I do not despise nor judge others who do not share my beliefs. No. I have no reason to impose my values on others. I can decide to either accept people as they are or to not ssociate with them. I have a right to my beliefs and others have a right to theirs. I have no interest in changing what value the man in the bushes might place on life. What is a social law? How would voting to support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion or not impose my values on her? She is still free to have the abortion or not. I can see your point if I was inclined to vote to limit personal rights. As far as saying "no" to children - how would that impose my values on them? In most instances the "no" was to protect them from physical danger and not force values on them. Could you provide an example?
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 29, 2004 15:20:11 GMT -5
There is enough truth expressed in the commentaries below for me to know that I won't invest a cent in MM's movie. Sorry Ed, but why do you keep on investing time and effort in discussing this movie at all? I have read a lot of the background information, about the "facts" presented in the movie and I agree that most of it are lies and that the message comes down to pure propaganda. Still.. it is an impressing movie and I kind of liked it, because it somehow fits in with my image of Bush. ;D I can understand it will be very confronting to see if you are a Republican. Ow well.. it's not so much fun discussing a movie with people who didn't watch it..
|
|
|
Post by LOVEROFBUSH on Jul 29, 2004 18:08:22 GMT -5
most of it are lies it somehow fits in with my image of Bush. SO YOUR IMAGE OF BUSH IS BASED ON LIES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY!
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 29, 2004 18:35:13 GMT -5
SO YOUR IMAGE OF BUSH IS BASED ON LIES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HONESTY! Not all of the movie is based on lies. Enough shots which show you how stupid GWB actually is. ;D By the way: you don't need to use capitals to make your point.
|
|
|
Post by Tiredoflies on Jul 29, 2004 20:32:55 GMT -5
Not all of the movie is based on lies. Enough shots which show you how stupid GWB actually is. ;D By the way: you don't need to use capitals to make your point. He is stupid? No, I think not! How European of you to think such a thing! I'm sorry you were fooled by MM's propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Jul 29, 2004 21:44:26 GMT -5
He is stupid? No, I think not! How European of you to think such a thing! I'm sorry you were fooled by MM's propaganda. Before there was a MM film pointing it out, before Bush was elected governor, before Bush was elected president it was clear he was not a scholar. But you do not have to be bright to be a good president. Some of our best presidents have been of average intellegence. Being bright does not mean the person will be a good president. Carter was very bright. Some people are naturally charismatic. Bush strives for charisma. Perhaps it would be best to focus on Bush's strengths rather than trying to make points about his intelligence.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jul 30, 2004 6:00:30 GMT -5
Before there was a MM film pointing it out, before Bush was elected governor, before Bush was elected president it was clear he was not a scholar. But you do not have to be bright to be a good president. Some of our best presidents have been of average intellegence. Being bright does not mean the person will be a good president. Carter was very bright. Some people are naturally charismatic. Bush strives for charisma. Perhaps it would be best to focus on Bush's strengths rather than trying to make points about his intelligence. You're right Present. I was just making fun of someone elses comment here. I have seen the strengths of Bush as a leader right after 9/11. I highly respected him for unifying the country and the world in the fight against terrorism. I find it hard to believe why or how he managed to completely loose that momentum over the last two years. How come everyone knows Bin Laden was behind the attacks on 9/11 and he still is a free man? Still out there plotting attacks from a cave somewhere in a shady corner of Afghanistan?? And all Bush has to say about it is "finding Osama bin Laden doesn't interest me at all" Go out and see how happy those people are in Iraq! Tiredofflies wrote: You are right.. I am an European
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jul 30, 2004 6:15:22 GMT -5
. . . . You are right.. I am an European My deepest sympathies! ;D inatent
|
|
|
Post by bill boy on Jul 30, 2004 13:49:56 GMT -5
Moore Sense Please By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Jul 29, 2004
(Boston) Well, I finally tracked down Michael Moore. I saw him walking in the street outside the Democratic Convention Center and pounced on him like the paparazzi on J-Lo. Moore had been dodging me because his movie was becoming increasingly indefensible by something called "facts." But, to his credit, Moore took up my street challenge and agreed to appear on "The Factor".
We debated for ten minutes and Moore put forth the following:
* That President Bush "lied" about Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction even though the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee Investigation and Lord Butler's British Investigation all say Bush did not lie.
* Moore defines a "lie" as anything that turns out not to be true. By following this logic, weather forecasters everywhere must now be categorized as pathologically dishonest.
* Moore said he would not have attacked the Taliban government in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack. Instead, he would have captured Bin laden by using "commandos." Apparently, Moore believes the Taliban would have allowed his "commandos" to root out Osama and his boys with impunity. Moore related the "commando" strategy to me with a straight face.
* Moore denied that Ronald Reagan's arms build up had anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and freedom for Eastern Europe.
* The filmmaker then went on to say that pre-emptive war is wrong and would have been immoral even in the case of Adolf Hitler. Moore said he would have prevented Hitler from assuming power in the first place. I didn't have time ask him how he would have done that but I assume commandos would have been involved.
So, hey, Michael Moore this bud's for you. Thanks for showing up and debating. Now we know the under-pinnings of your world outlook.
What is still astounding to me is how many people continue to embrace the fantasies and deceptions of Michael Moore. Some people actually applauded him at the Democratic Convention, but the heavyweights stayed away.
In one bizarre scene, Moore was seated next to Rosalyn and Jimmy Carter. The couple stared straight ahead, looking like contestants about to eat bugs on the "Fear Factor," and the Kerry campaign has made it quite clear that Moore and other left-wing bomb throwers are not to be seen around the candidate.
In fact, the Kerry people actually censored some of the speechmakers from using inflammatory anti-Bush rhetoric. That is almost unheard of at a political convention.
But old reliable Howard Dean came through. He continues to be Michael Moore's best pal, appearing with him at a Bush bash in a Cambridge hotel. It is absolutely frightening how close Governor Dean came to being the Democratic presidential nominee.
This may surprise you, but I do not dislike Michael Moore. He is a true believer. He wants a completely different kind of country, and he'll do anything to make that happen.
The problem with Moore is that the ends justify the means. He knows his statements and movies are not based on facts, but he continues to say they are. Even in Moore's world where truth doesn't exist, there should be some kind of ethical standard, but there isn't. And the fact that Howard Dean and other powerful Americans accept that situation is more troubling than anything Michael Moore could ever say.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Aug 3, 2004 21:14:27 GMT -5
Would you be able to disqualify the Satanic Bible without reading it? Yes you do, please reread the title. Sure, here’s a few; *Your son says he plans to have his girlfriend sleep over. (If you say no, you are forcing your value of commitment and integrity on him). *Your son says he wants to stay up until midnight every night and that he doesn’t have time for his homework. (If you say no, you are forcing your value of education on him). *Your son wants you to let him eat chocolate cake (or a candy bar) for breakfast every morning. (If you say no, you are forcing your value of health on him). *Your son says he will never amount to anything. (If you say thats wrong, you are forcing your value of optimism and hope on him). In addition, if you vote for Kerry and he gets elected, you are forcing your liberal values on me. So don’t do it; vote for Bush. See what I mean? No one can live in a vacuum. Ed
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 3, 2004 22:08:32 GMT -5
Would you be able to disqualify the Satanic Bible without reading it? Yes you do, please reread the title. What does the title tell you? Satanic Bible by Anton Lavey is a book written by a single person. The title does not reveal a lot about it. Why would I say no? My children had a number of friends. I think the question you are really asking is if my son asked me if he could have sex with his girl friend in my house. The answer to that would be no but it is not quite the same as saying that he cannot have have sex with his girlfriend. There are rules - No setting off fireworks in the house. No friends over when we (parents) not home. As far as having sex - that is something, short of restraints, you cannot prevent. None of my children had designated bedtimes. They just had to get up in the morning and make the bus. It is not a value judgement - if they missed the bus I had to drive them. I am basically a lazy person. You would be surprised how easy food management is if you can just stand back and allow children to eat what they want. We set no restrictions on foods. Desert was not special and never withheld as punishment or offered as a reward. They were the only kids on the block who cried for broccoli at 4 years. They liked candy but would only eat 1/2 of a bag of M&Ms and then leave the rest. Optimism is not a value. I would offer him support and try to find the root of his despair. Your man should have been a better president. What 'liberal' values will be forced on you? Will you have to marry a person if the same sex? Will you be forced to have an abortion? No, I fail to see what you mean.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 4, 2004 6:51:25 GMT -5
Present,
Sometimes I wonder if you seriously believe all of the stuff you write or if you are just stirring. Regardless, you offer a very "interesting" perspective.
Your untiring responses on this board show me that this is not the case. Most people consider me to be motivated and persistent, but I get exhausted by just reading your posts. ;D
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Aug 4, 2004 20:08:07 GMT -5
Ok, so you would say "no, you cannot have sex w/your girlfriend in my house", and attempt to impose YOUR values on him. Just who do you think you are? The above is really the only example that you didn't completely sidestep. Case in point: Are you saying you don't value optimism? Did you notice I also included "hope". That is something you value (even if you won't admit it) because you wrote "I would offer him support and try to find the root of his despair". Now why would you do that unless you value optimism and hope? Why not just let him drown in despair and keep YOUR values to yourself? We could also talk about courage, patience, etc. which if your children didn't adequately posess you would allow someone else to impose these values on them through medication or counseling. Are you for real, or wanna keep playing games? Ed
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 4, 2004 21:39:08 GMT -5
. . . .I am basically a lazy person. . . . . That's characteristic of liberals. They want the government to take care of everything so they won't have to do anything, and they want someone else to pay for it. ;D inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 4, 2004 23:45:18 GMT -5
Ok, so you would say "no, you cannot have sex w/your girlfriend in my house", and attempt to impose YOUR values on him. Just who do you think you are? I am still unsure of the values that I would be imposing Hmmmm. You mentioned that requiring children to eat certain foods was imposing values (values of good health perhaps?). I responded by saying that we did not impose eating restrictions on the children. We had both seen where struggles over food could lead. Exactly how is that side stepping the question? No. I said I did no see optimism as a value. Support can bring comfort. Identifying the root of the problem can sometimes bring a solution. Hope and optimism do not enter into it. I help people because I care about them. Their values and my values do not enter into it. You cannot give someone values. They have to develop them on their own. What game did you have in mind? I think part of the problem might be how you view imposing values. Explaining your values is not imposing them. Allowing a woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion gives her the right to act on her values. You may or may not think abortion is ethical but you are allowing others to live according to their values. By passing laws to prevent her from deciding for herself you have imposed your values on her. Not allowing people to smoke in my house is not imposing my values on them. They are free to smoke if they wish. They are not free to pollute my home with their smoke. Perhaps we were speaking at cross purposes.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 4, 2004 23:52:02 GMT -5
That's characteristic of liberals. They want the government to take care of everything so they won't have to do anything, and they want someone else to pay for it. ;D inatent Your lack of knowledge regarding liberalism is painfully evident.
|
|
|
Post by 96e on Aug 5, 2004 2:17:11 GMT -5
Your lack of knowledge regarding liberalism is painfully evident. Prove him wrong. How is liberalism anything other then what he said? Show the facts to back up your post.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 5, 2004 11:35:14 GMT -5
Prove him wrong. How is liberalism anything other then what he said? Show the facts to back up your post. Liberalism is a philosophy. A set of beliefs. I have a feeling that the poster was using the term liberal in the same way Rush would use the term - people opposed to the Republican way of thinking. Liberalism supports the development of individual freedom. Liberalism supports a belief in essential human goodness and rationality. Liberalism assumes that people, having a rational intellect, have the ability to recognize problems and solve them and thus can achieve systematic improvement in the human condition. It would be less rather than more government. We do not need the government to pass laws that define who can and cannot marry. The government does not need to spend time regulating people's lives. People are given the right to determine their own fate but with that right comes the responsibility as well.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 5, 2004 13:42:38 GMT -5
Present,
While your definition may be technically correct... it would also mean that the understanding that nearly every American has about the word is wrong.
For example, you say:
In reality, suggesting that liberals in the US support the idividual right to bear arms is laughable.
Again, this is so contrary to what Americans understand that I really don't know what to say.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 5, 2004 14:13:08 GMT -5
Present, While your definition may be technically correct... it would also mean that the understanding that nearly every American has about the word is wrong. That may well be the case. As I mentioned, I realized that the poster was using the Rush version of liberal. I am all in favor of increasing the budget for education. But even the common definition works: 1) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. 3) Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. Although you complain when I request exact definitions, there is a reason. Having a discussion, especially when not face to face, requires that we are all using the same meanings of the words. <insert Bill Clinton joke here>
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Aug 7, 2004 22:26:52 GMT -5
Present wrote: So you are against laws that outlaw rape? It could also be preventing someone from deciding for themself and imposing your values on them. The Bible disagrees..."it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe". Interesting that kids are especially predisposed to "develop" the parent's values. I wonder how that works? Let me write it again. Every law/rule is an attempt to legislate morality and therefore imposes values. And everyone has some sort of value system that they cannot help but impose on another because no one can live in a vacuum. Thats reality. This is my last post on the subject as I more highly value other pursuits. Ed
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 8, 2004 19:21:14 GMT -5
Let me write it again. Every law/rule is an attempt to legislate morality and therefore imposes values. Here are two examples dealing with the issues on the table: A law allowing a woman to make her own decision regarding whether to have an abortion or not does not impose any values on the woman but allows her to make her own decision based on her own values. A law removing that decision making process from the woman and placing it in the hands of the government imposes the values of those who oppose abortion on the woman. A law allowing same sex marriages does not impose anyone's values but allows any person to decide who they will marry. A law, or constitutional amendment, prohibiting same sex unions does impose values on people. Laws should be passed to protect individuals rights, not remove them. OK
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 8, 2004 21:12:23 GMT -5
Oh boy, I guess I am back in,
It imposes her values on her unborn child in the same way that a slave owner imposes his values on his slaves. It is part of the governments legitimate role to stop slavery and abortion. I sorry that you do not see this.
Do you support the right for a man to marry his sister? A minor? His goat?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 8, 2004 22:00:35 GMT -5
. . . . Do you support the right for a man to marry his sister? A minor? His goat? Robb Uh Oh, the animal rights folks are gonna protest! ;D inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 0:10:26 GMT -5
Oh boy, I guess I am back in, It imposes her values on her unborn child in the same way that a slave owner imposes his values on his slaves. I do not think a 4 cell, or even a 32 cell, blastomere can have any values or even a single brain cell to be stimulated. As I mentioned back a while ago, you need to define when the zygote becomes an individual. It is an easy cliché to say life begins at fertilization but that just leads to more questions. I too believe that it is the function of government to protect the rights of its citizens. I think the question here is when a fetus becomes a citizen. Or even less specific, an individual. I have no problem with relatives marrying. Cousins can already marry. Why draw the line? If they wish to reproduce and that is a problem require genetic testing Minors are already covered by a number of laws. I would be opposed to a law that would prevent it. Why would anyone care if someone wants to marry a goat? Why waste taxpayer's money to pass laws to prevent them from doing things that should be between them, their god, and their goat?
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 9, 2004 0:42:19 GMT -5
No, I really don't need to do that. It is not me that has a problem with this issue. I do not support abortion at any time during the pregnancy.
OK, just tell us all when exactly the zygote becomes an individual according to your standard.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 9, 2004 1:24:17 GMT -5
No, I really don't need to do that. It is not me that has a problem with this issue. I do not support abortion at any time during the pregnancy. No, you don't need to. But do you live in a black and white world? Are you saying that in the case of ectopic pregnancies the fetus and mother should be allowed to die? That no effort should be taken to save the mother? These are not things that never happen. They are decisions that people have to make and women should not lose the right to make decisions that directly effect their health and well being. The zygote will never become an individual. It is a single cell. I would consider the fetus to be an individual when it can function as an individual and exist outside of its mother. The solution to the abortion problem is education. By teaching the proper use of birth control coupled with self respect, respect of others, abstinence, and personal responsibility it is possible to reduce the pregnancy rate and reduce the use of abortion as a means of birth control.
|
|