♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 17, 2010 18:16:08 GMT
Á toi, Jumbo?! Peut-être! Well we do have those who prefer to show their forcefulness directly and without camofluage here! ;D
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 17, 2010 20:34:08 GMT
No, not at all. It was prompted by the gun control debate. I cannot make up my mind about this issue.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jan 17, 2010 22:32:36 GMT
then just say you can see both sides of the argument on some issues its not always claer cut on others people make their minds up due to events/history/exoerience etc etc
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 23:24:47 GMT
Á toi, Jumbo?! Peut-être! Well we do have those who prefer to show their forcefulness directly and without camofluage here! ;D i guess that would be me, except that i would call it absolute honesty you've known me a long, long time, and know that i NEVER say anything that i don't totally mean
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 23:26:28 GMT
No, not at all. It was prompted by the gun control debate. I cannot make up my mind about this issue. well hon, it's no different than anything else. you use cold hard logic, with NO emotion whatsoever, and you come up with the correct answer
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 17, 2010 23:28:36 GMT
then just say you can see both sides of the argument on some issues its not always claer cut on others people make their minds up due to events/history/exoerience etc etc huh uh. when you totally strip all emotion of any kind from an issue, and look at nothing but hard facts, it is always clear cut
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 17, 2010 23:39:24 GMT
Á toi, Jumbo?! Peut-être! Well we do have those who prefer to show their forcefulness directly and without camofluage here! ;D i guess that would be me, except that i would call it absolute honesty you've known me a long, long time, and know that i NEVER say anything that i don't totally mean I certainly respect your honesty Jim! I guess everyone has to be true to themselves to be able to claim being honest. I'm thankful that i can often be "diplomatic" in dealing with people and not feel there's anything "dishonest" about that. If you want to open a safe, but don't know the combination the direct way would be with force. I prefer if possible sensing out the combination.
When debating with someone i might see that they use a sentence i may use and by trying to expand the "common ground" i feel i can get my point accross better than by trying to wear them down.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 18, 2010 11:47:55 GMT
...when you totally strip all emotion of any kind from an issue, and look at nothing but hard facts, it is always clear cut But I have observed that the hard facts that a person imagines clinch their arguments are often nothing of the kind. The statement that something is 'wrong' is often not nearly as self-evident or beyond the need for proof as the person relying on it may suppose.
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Jan 18, 2010 16:11:01 GMT
You're right of course mouse. The problem is that there are so many topics where I do see both sides of the argument. That is what I mean by being indecisive. I suppose if someone held a knife to my throat it would concentrate my mind ;D It's the hypothetical debates where I dither - not the real life situations of making decisions. I am very unemotional, cool and rational then.
Precisely so Jean.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 18, 2010 22:14:51 GMT
i guess that would be me, except that i would call it absolute honesty you've known me a long, long time, and know that i NEVER say anything that i don't totally mean I certainly respect your honesty Jim! I guess everyone has to be true to themselves to be able to claim being honest. I'm thankful that i can often be "diplomatic" in dealing with people and not feel there's anything "dishonest" about that. If you want to open a safe, but don't know the combination the direct way would be with force. I prefer if possible sensing out the combination.
When debating with someone i might see that they use a sentence i may use and by trying to expand the "common ground" i feel i can get my point accross better than by trying to wear them down.of course, it would depend on WHY you were trying to open a safe that you didn't have the combination to. of course, as they say, you CAN catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, but what are you going to do with the flies? i used to have a mouse trap that caught them and i would take them outside and turn them loose because i don't believe in killing animals. i don't really like killing flies either, but i also don't like them buzzing around all over me, so, i use a fly swatter. being as sweet as i am, the flies come to me, and i WHACK them
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 18, 2010 22:20:30 GMT
...when you totally strip all emotion of any kind from an issue, and look at nothing but hard facts, it is always clear cut But I have observed that the hard facts that a person imagines clinch their arguments are often nothing of the kind. The statement that something is 'wrong' is often not nearly as self-evident or beyond the need for proof as the person relying on it may suppose. no hon. right and wrong are immutable. what was wrong a million years ago is wrong today, and will be wrong a million years from now. right and wrong are NOT determined by anyone's perspective. they are absolutes
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 18, 2010 22:22:11 GMT
You're right of course mouse. The problem is that there are so many topics where I do see both sides of the argument. That is what I mean by being indecisive. I suppose if someone held a knife to my throat it would concentrate my mind ;D It's the hypothetical debates where I dither - not the real life situations of making decisions. I am very unemotional, cool and rational then. Precisely so Jean. no, no. i just explained that.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 18, 2010 23:10:40 GMT
... right and wrong are immutable. what was wrong a million years ago is wrong today, and will be wrong a million years from now. right and wrong are NOT determined by anyone's perspective. they are absolutes That may be so, but there is by no means universal agreement about what these absolutes are. To assert your opinion is only to assert your opinion. You have to do better than that. And if you want to rely on the authority of the book of Leviticus, you'll have to take the whole book - you can't pick and choose.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 12:27:44 GMT
... right and wrong are immutable. what was wrong a million years ago is wrong today, and will be wrong a million years from now. right and wrong are NOT determined by anyone's perspective. they are absolutes That may be so, but there is by no means universal agreement about what these absolutes are. To assert your opinion is only to assert your opinion. You have to do better than that. And if you want to rely on the authority of the book of Leviticus, you'll have to take the whole book - you can't pick and choose. of course, i don't pick and choose, but, if you go by the bible, you have to start with genesis, which was a couple thousand years before leviticus. nonetheless, the universal morality exists totally aside from religion. it's a very simple fact. you either believe that murder is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, or you don't. there is no such thing as evolving standards of decency. it doesn't change. you either accept that fact, or you believe that hitler wasn't doing anything wrong murdering the jews, since the evolving standard of decency in 1939 germany said that it was okay. the same concept applies to absolutely EVERYTHING, without exception
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 19, 2010 13:19:07 GMT
And if you want to rely on the authority of the book of Leviticus, you'll have to take the whole book - you can't pick and choose. Of course when the Titanic was sinking decisions had to be made as to who would live and who would die and it could be said the laws of Leviticus played a role. The book of Leviticus was written at a time when famines, diseases, etc. would decimate the population. Decisions were made as to who would live and who would die. Now that the economy is so strong compared to Biblical times it's not neccesary that some die so that others may live.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 19, 2010 13:27:45 GMT
...the universal morality exists totally aside from religion. it's a very simple fact. you either believe that murder is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, or you don't. there is no such thing as evolving standards of decency. it doesn't change. you either accept that fact, or you believe that hitler wasn't doing anything wrong murdering the jews, since the evolving standard of decency in 1939 germany said that it was okay... Most people are probably with you there, jumbo. So you don't really need to argue that one; you can take it as read. However, many people do disagree with you here: I refer you to Leviticus. All of it. No exceptions, no rationalisations, no special pleading.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 19, 2010 13:56:54 GMT
The specific behaviour that constitutes 'murder' in the legal sense varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and changes over time.
So it's a little simplistic to suggest it's some unchanging standard that is now, has always been, and will always be the same.
That's the problem with most of Jumbo's arguments; he argues that there is a fixed and unchangeable right and wrong, whereas any study of history shows how cultures and societies vary and change over time.
However, I just wish I was as sure about anything as Jumbo is about everything. Unfortunately I always consider the possibility that I may be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 19, 2010 14:41:53 GMT
I allowed him murder for the sake of argument, but you are right; as soon as you examine the detail, the edges begin to look blurred, even in a case that seems so universally agreed.
In the bowels of Christ, I hope.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 15:32:03 GMT
...the universal morality exists totally aside from religion. it's a very simple fact. you either believe that murder is wrong, has always been wrong, and will always be wrong, or you don't. there is no such thing as evolving standards of decency. it doesn't change. you either accept that fact, or you believe that hitler wasn't doing anything wrong murdering the jews, since the evolving standard of decency in 1939 germany said that it was okay... Most people are probably with you there, jumbo. So you don't really need to argue that one; you can take it as read. However, many people do disagree with you here: I refer you to Leviticus. All of it. No exceptions, no rationalisations, no special pleading. i'd refer you to aachen. if you recall, just because he stole the gold and silver, not just he, but his entire family, and even his animals were killed. i think that is a bit much
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 19, 2010 15:37:11 GMT
The specific behaviour that constitutes 'murder' in the legal sense varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and changes over time. So it's a little simplistic to suggest it's some unchanging standard that is now, has always been, and will always be the same. That's the problem with most of Jumbo's arguments; he argues that there is a fixed and unchangeable right and wrong, whereas any study of history shows how cultures and societies vary and change over time. However, I just wish I was as sure about anything as Jumbo is about everything. Unfortunately I always consider the possibility that I may be wrong. once again, you miss the point. totally aside from the fact that we are not talking about legally, you are still trying to go by what cultures and societies think about something, which has NO relevance whatsoever. as i have told you, any and all human's perception of anything, particularly right and wrong, has nothing to do with it. right and wrong are carved in stone, and people's ideas about it are totally irrelevant, and change absolutely NOTHING here again, you are saying that, because it was thought to be okay in 1939 german society to kill jews, it was okay. that's ridiculous on its face and, if you think something that you are going to say is wrong, don't say it
|
|