[Swamp_Thing]

Who´s to say wich morals are right or wrong? Who gets to decide? Why should i be subject and forced into a moral code i do not follow? The issue is not wether one side is right over the other, the issue is one side forcing the other to accept he´s the one who is right.

I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it.

I never heard of such nonsense.  No healthy kid gets dopped up just because he´s smarter. You must be thinking of kids who are on Ritalin, or maybe autistic kids. Those kids are not "drugged" because they are smarter, they are treated because they suffer from a disorder, that disturbs both him and his class.
Hyperactivity seen in those kids is a very serious problem. Would you rather not see them get treatment? You realize a kid suffering from that disorder, if not treated, will never EVER pass his grade? He will be stuck in primary school for most of his childhood, for the simple reason that he just can´t concentrate long enough to learn that 2+2 equals 4.

There are some cases, however, of "less inteligent" kids with learning dificulties, that get wrongly diagnosed with that disorder (sorry, can´t remember the english term for it), and some less forgiving parents start feeding their children with massive
doses of Ritalin, hoping that will cure them.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Liberator


I have not, nor have I ever held that stance.  Do not make this about me.

But I also notice that you accuse my "side" of wanting to legislate our beliefs...you may want to have a little introspection into you're own "side" before casting that accusation about.  The most that my "side"(not party, if the Republicans deviate to much, I'll leave) can be accused of is wanting to slow down the degeneration of society and I would like...like...to see a return to a more traditional set of moral values.  I'm not talking about Puritanism either, I'm talking about a return to a society where children didn't need to be drugged because they were more intelligent than their peers and the teachers couldn't handle it.  I seek a society where right and wrong are clearly defined and people aren't celebrated because they stuck it to the Man.  A society where you are a adult not because you've ****ed someone, but because you've stepped up and started to make responsible choices and are willing to deal with the consequences, and not run and hide when they become more than you expected.  A society where Politicians didn't buy votes by adding yet another program to an already insanely oversized Federal/State budget.

I'm not so deluded to think that this can happen fully, but if even a but of comes to pass, the world would be better.

Admirable goals, true. But you've got to realize that, however you or me or anyone else might want it, it is nearly impossible to return to anything. The world only spins forward. Or, if t is possible, there has not yet been anyone smart and capable enough to pull it off.

I think the problem, frankly, is that the world-view for which most conservatives are fighting is a mass of different ideas. For example, homosexuality is here to stay. Gay marriage is likely a matter of years, not decades. There's no going back, and it's only a matter of time, a few decades, before it's not only legal, but common, the world over.

Now, honestly in government and an end to pork-barrel spending, these are great things which are quite achievable, and I support anyone's efforts towards that goal. But the thing to realize is that these two ideas, and a lot of others, aren't necessarily connected. There is no return to simpler times, but what is possible is to incorprate some of those ideals into the present day. Social conservativism is on its death bed (in the West anyway, and it's only a matter of time elsewhere), but other forms of conservativism, like fiscal responsibility and personal freedoms, have a strong future, so I guess that it's a matter of picking the battles.

I know I had a point in there somewhere, but damned if I can now figure out what it was.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, please, tell me what is wrong with having some absolutes in morality and personal responsibility.  The largest problem facing the world is the fact that some people believe that all minorities, no matter the size or composition of their position, must have a voice.  

Now I am not going to say that there should only be one point of view, and I ask you to not pervert my words to indicate otherwise.  What I am saying is that a minority should not be given undue credence simply because they happen to attack you're political rivals somehow.

If I absolutely believed that Bush was from Capella-A and that he had it in for Humanity as a species.  Half of you would probably change you're opinion of me simply because I had attacked Bush.  It's really kind of pathetic.

Your definition of the absolutes of moral and personal responsibility is more often than not a matter of opinion, though - surely you can see that?  I don't believe that any opinion should be given universal precence unless it is shared by all.

Having 'undue' credence does not equate to haveing any credence.

Also, of course all minorities should have a voice; otherwise they don't have the basic human rights that are held by a majority.  I'd say the lworst problems in this world stem from people not listening to each other, not from people trying to talk.

Implying that peoples views of this issue are based upon the US political power structure is wrong; to suggest that I or like-minded people would assign credence based on opinion about an individual is absurd.   It strikes me that common tact to try and defuse criticism is to imply a personal bias; whilst I may have developed a bias against the current US administration, that stems from vehemently disagreeing with their politics.

I only apply my political opinion to the US because it's the most powerful country in the world, and one which IMO has been going downhill of late to the extent I (honestly) worry about the consequences upon the rest of the world.  Topics on the UK, French, etc democratic system and state simply don't crop up that often.

[Liberator]

Okay, let's define a bit:

# "You shalt not swear falsely"
# "Honor your father and your mother..."
# "You shall not murder"
# "You shall not commit adultery"(I would extend this to include any such loose behavior)
# "You shall not steal"
# "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
# "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."(In our "modern" culture, this is what 4/5s of popular entertainment involves. )

I think you'll notice that these are the non-religious commandments...

[StratComm]

Ok, so you're using your religion to define right and wrong, though you're definitely injecting your own opinion into it (I would extend..., not even explicitly stated in the Bible).  But that's still not an adequate universal right and wrong.  Trouble is, I don't care if you're removing the commandments involving God, those are still intended for followers of the Judeo-Christian faiths and that's leaving a good half of the world out.  Never mind that it's not nearly that simple in terms of US politics; I don't know of any mainstream political party that actually advocates breaking any of those things anyway.  And besides, relegating personal behavior (adultry), or even thought (jealousy) have absolutely no place in the legal system, unless you're in a theocracy which the US should absolutely not be.

[Zarax]

Originally posted by Liberator
Okay, let's define a bit:

1 "You shalt not swear falsely"
2 "Honor your father and your mother..."
3 "You shall not murder"
4 "You shall not commit adultery"(I would extend this to include any such loose behavior)
5 "You shall not steal"
6 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
7 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house..."(In our "modern" culture, this is what 4/5s of popular entertainment involves. )

I think you'll notice that these are the non-religious commandments...

Oh, my...

And you think that this can be ackieved by politics?
Lib, you can be an utopist when you want...

1) There's already a law for that... try stating the false in court and you'll see, outside court it's called "fraud"

2) It's up to the parents... educate your kids and they will respect you... educating meaning spending time with them and doing it first hand wherever possible... no law can change it

3) Murder is already regulated... I know where you want to go there but for that it's a personal choice and not an enforcement.

4) How would you stop it from a political perspective? Hmm, maybe the Shariah would fit... But i shudder at the tought and it won't really stop the thing, just make it harder and more attractive to many

5) Isn't it regulated? Or maybe are we talking about corporate welfare?

6) That remembers a country name and a president name to me... Please explain better as it can be interpreted in an undesiderable way...

7) Easy... enforce better privacy laws (note: it requires balls as you would go against the media industry, corps in general and a good share of the PATRIOT act... besides it is quite against the current US government concept of security).

You can get most of it by moving to a small city Lib, people is much more genuine...

[Liberator]

In case you didn't know, I grew up in a town of less than 1500.

[Zarax]

Ok, i didn't know Lib...
Can you answer to the rest now?

You're staying in a much better environment than most people and it should be quite closer to your ideals...

Aren't you?

[vyper]

I suddenly feel sorry for 1499 people then.

Come on Lib, do you really believe bible style commandments that start off reasonable and then reach fascist proportions are a solid basis for a free and democractic society?

As the man says: only a Sith deals in absolutes.

[Unknown Target]

Ok, Liberator. Using your religion as a basis for other people's morality is not only stupid, it's downright unfair. A perfect example of this is gay rights. I know I always come back to this, but it illustrates my points perfectly. Your religion says being gay is bad. Another religion might say it's good. Yet you keep wanting to use your religion to quash what in their religion might be ok.
Now, the most common rebuttle that I usually recieve to this statement, is that many of the US laws seem to be based off of Christian laws, written down in the Bible. While this is true, it's more a case of the Bible and the US law being right at the same time, and not so much thinking "well, the Bible says thou shalt not kill, so we should put that in our laws". It's more the fact that a society simply couldn't function without certain rules, such as laws set to keep people from killing and stealing at will, being in place.
You need to learn that just because people disagree with you, it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong. Even though what your religion says may be the "absolute truth" to you, you have to learn that it might just be the "absolute truth" for everyone. Once you learn that, people might actually listen to you.

Now, about this whole argument: it's all a bunch of crap. Get back on topic, I will not have this thread be turned into a religion vs. government debate. If it continues, I will request the admins to lock this thread. I'm tired and not in the mood to have a bunch of bull**** or biased and off base opinions come into this thread and drag it off topic, to a predictable locked end. This topic is about the nuclear option, and anything related to it. Not about your stupid religious touting or bashing, and I'm talking to both sides of the argument.

[aldo_14]

It's worth noting that Irans' governmental structure & policies are based upon a series of absolute moral commandments.

What I notice, Lib is that some of your commandments are based on social preferences; adultery, for example.  Nasty thing, I don't approve of it, but for the state to legislate against it is surely infriging upon peoples right to privacy?  (especially as you talk of 'extending' it).  Coveting your neighbours house... what does that even mean?  Likewise 'honour they father and mother'; don't speak back to your parents?  Is that really something that the government needs to be involved in?  Some parents welcome children who hold their own opinions and are willing to disagree, after all.

Of the others... most are pretty obvious; murder, stealing, etc are already illegal; they're things which pretty much every society throughout history has prohibited as a result of their demonstratable harm to individuals.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
That's really the fundamental question. I generally hope that everyone, regardless of political affiliation can see the danger in single-party rule, but sometimes I feel like I'm giving people too much credit.

Ironic that the same people who favour a single party are also the first to complain about it in communist countries isn't it?

Originally posted by Liberator
If I absolutely believed that Bush was from Capella-A and that he had it in for Humanity as a species.  Half of you would probably change you're opinion of me simply because I had attacked Bush.  It's really kind of pathetic.

Nope. We already think you're insane. Our opinion wouldn't change one iota

If you made a serious attack on Bush about his head up his own arse policies then my opinion might change. I might think you're finally starting to wake up like many republicans finally are. Interestingly enough I'm seeing attacks on Bush from people who were former supporters of his.

The fact is that most Republicans are realising that Bush doesn't actually stand for many of the ideals republicans are supposed to stand for (Small federal government for instance).

[Nuke]

morality could be defined mathmatically/scientifically.  a moral action is one that has a direct, more than neutral effect on society, an immoral action is one that has a direct negative effect on society. the reason i say direct is because it is usually beyond human capacity to understand all indirect consequinces of an action. to say somone is wrong because they did something they thought was good (a historical example, prohibition), and have something bad happen because of it (organized crime) is analogus to a which hunt. everyone loves a scapegoat, it allows them to dodge responsibility for things. i dont see why we should blame people for not being able to calculate every possible outcome for an action.

now because society changes, so should morality. fixing absolutes like as in the case of the bible, would conflict to this idea. it is my opinion that truth is not a constant, but rather a variable. it is our responsibility to change with that variable. none the less the 7 commandments (because the others are simply anti-egyptian propaganda and one to promote going to church to listen to a micro-dictator) will usually correlate wih the result of calculating morality anyway. murder theft, adultry (because it can sometimes result in murder), lying (because there are those who believe it and take good action based on it. if you multipy the basis for the action by -1, you should do the same to the result. therefore manipulating somone to do the wrong thing) are very extreme examples of negative effects on society and will tilt the math in favor of the comandments anyway. no doubt moses knew what i knew and thus made the commandments as such (and adding a few to make the jews hate the egyptions, probibly for all the years of slavery they endured). of curse he broke one of them by telling the jews that god said that.

[Corsair]

Originally posted by Liberator
Here's a little tidbit for you:

Bush has only had 55%, or so, of his nominee's given an up or down vote.  In contrast Clinton, the previous Bush, and Reagan all had over 90% of their candidates voted on by this time of their term(s) in office.

Here's a little tidbit for you from today's New York Times (although we all know it's a communist, evil newspaper bent on overthrowing America so take it with a grain of salt)

(that bit was sarcasm)