|
at least half of Americans = TRASH
|
|
Topic Started: Apr 12 2007, 08:07:01 PM (1,907 Views)
|
|
Jeff
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:05:05 PM
Post #61
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- Apr 13 2007, 20:41:22
- Quote:
-
Flarebringer, let me just start by saying that you're one pretentious guy. You sound like an ivory tower liberal college professor.
If anything, you sound more pretentious than him, Darts. - Quote:
-
Coercion is only morally right when it's done to stop a worse violation of rights and when it truly is done to protect the people's rights, which is why I accept the premise that there need to be taxpayer-funded police and military organizations.
- Quote:
-
That's because people are immoral and don't have as much respect for others' rights as they should, as I established earlier in this topic.
Both those points do not have any sort of backup. You do not get to decide alone of what is moral or not, so just saying it's immoral doesn't give meaning to your argument any weight.
Morals are personal. He does get to decide what is moral and immoral... but only for himself.
|
|
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:06:16 PM
Post #62
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Jeff
- Apr 13 2007, 19:05:05
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- Apr 13 2007, 20:41:22
- Quote:
-
Flarebringer, let me just start by saying that you're one pretentious guy. You sound like an ivory tower liberal college professor.
If anything, you sound more pretentious than him, Darts. - Quote:
-
Coercion is only morally right when it's done to stop a worse violation of rights and when it truly is done to protect the people's rights, which is why I accept the premise that there need to be taxpayer-funded police and military organizations.
- Quote:
-
That's because people are immoral and don't have as much respect for others' rights as they should, as I established earlier in this topic.
Both those points do not have any sort of backup. You do not get to decide alone of what is moral or not, so just saying it's immoral doesn't give meaning to your argument any weight.
Morals are personal. He does get to decide what is moral and immoral... but only for himself.
Just because my debating skills are vastly inferior, doesn't mean I am allowed to go ignored! >_>!!
|
|
|
| |
|
Jeff
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:08:50 PM
Post #63
|
|
Unregistered
|
- F3nr1L
- Apr 13 2007, 21:06:16
- Jeff
- Apr 13 2007, 19:05:05
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- Apr 13 2007, 20:41:22
- Quote:
-
Flarebringer, let me just start by saying that you're one pretentious guy. You sound like an ivory tower liberal college professor.
If anything, you sound more pretentious than him, Darts. - Quote:
-
Coercion is only morally right when it's done to stop a worse violation of rights and when it truly is done to protect the people's rights, which is why I accept the premise that there need to be taxpayer-funded police and military organizations.
- Quote:
-
That's because people are immoral and don't have as much respect for others' rights as they should, as I established earlier in this topic.
Both those points do not have any sort of backup. You do not get to decide alone of what is moral or not, so just saying it's immoral doesn't give meaning to your argument any weight.
Morals are personal. He does get to decide what is moral and immoral... but only for himself.
Just because my debating skills are vastly inferior, doesn't mean I am allowed to go ignored! >_>!!
...But I don't find anything wrong with your point.
|
|
|
| |
|
Abyssal_Shrimp
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:22:57 PM
Post #64
|
GREGOR SMASH!
- Posts:
- 13,164
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #41
- Joined:
- September 9, 2006
- Identity
- Shrimp
|
- Jeff
- Apr 13 2007, 22:05:05
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- Apr 13 2007, 20:41:22
- Quote:
-
Flarebringer, let me just start by saying that you're one pretentious guy. You sound like an ivory tower liberal college professor.
If anything, you sound more pretentious than him, Darts. - Quote:
-
Coercion is only morally right when it's done to stop a worse violation of rights and when it truly is done to protect the people's rights, which is why I accept the premise that there need to be taxpayer-funded police and military organizations.
- Quote:
-
That's because people are immoral and don't have as much respect for others' rights as they should, as I established earlier in this topic.
Both those points do not have any sort of backup. You do not get to decide alone of what is moral or not, so just saying it's immoral doesn't give meaning to your argument any weight.
Morals are personal. He does get to decide what is moral and immoral... but only for himself.
Yeah, that fits better. >>
|
|
|
| |
|
Hammer Kirby
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:29:38 PM
Post #65
|
- Posts:
- 16,954
- Group:
- Commy Red
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- September 5, 2006
- Identity
- Dart
|
*rolls eyes*
I've heard all these lame liberal cliches many times before...
|
|
|
| |
|
Abyssal_Shrimp
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:30:53 PM
Post #66
|
GREGOR SMASH!
- Posts:
- 13,164
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #41
- Joined:
- September 9, 2006
- Identity
- Shrimp
|
- Darts
- Apr 13 2007, 22:29:38
*rolls eyes*
I've heard all these lame liberal cliches many times before...
Then prove them wrong? You're the one who sounds pretentious now.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jeff
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:34:41 PM
Post #67
|
|
Unregistered
|
- Darts
- Apr 13 2007, 21:29:38
*rolls eyes*
I've heard all these lame liberal cliches many times before...
I can only assume he is saying the same thing... with the obvious switching of liberal for libertarian.
|
|
|
| |
|
Hammer Kirby
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:37:51 PM
Post #68
|
- Posts:
- 16,954
- Group:
- Commy Red
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- September 5, 2006
- Identity
- Dart
|
Basically, you're saying that I don't get to say what's moral, right? Well, what gives you or the government the right to say what's moral instead?
|
|
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:39:53 PM
Post #69
|
|
Unregistered
|
Just because morals are relative doesn't mean that there aren't certain things that are beneficial to all.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jeff
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:40:30 PM
Post #70
|
|
Unregistered
|
I think we all agreed (aside from the absent Flarebringer) that government doesn't get to decide what's moral... only what is legal/illegal. The two are not always the same thing.
|
|
|
| |
|
Abyssal_Shrimp
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:40:50 PM
Post #71
|
GREGOR SMASH!
- Posts:
- 13,164
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #41
- Joined:
- September 9, 2006
- Identity
- Shrimp
|
- Darts
- Apr 13 2007, 22:37:51
Basically, you're saying that I don't get to say what's moral, right? Well, what gives you or the government the right to say what's moral instead?
Wait, did I say I got to say what was moral? Oh wait, no, I didn't. And I didn't make any argument consisting of "it's immoral" too.
And the government doesn't really too. But that's not a point as well.
Way to miss what I was saying, Darts.
|
|
|
| |
|
Paper Mario
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:43:29 PM
Post #72
|
- Posts:
- 1,510
- Group:
- Member
- Member
- #8
- Joined:
- September 4, 2006
|
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- Apr 13 2007, 12:28:12
- F3nr1L
- Apr 13 2007, 01:35:21
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- Apr 12 2007, 19:48:21
- Darts
- Apr 12 2007, 22:05:52
Any good Christian preacher thinks that women should not have jobs other than raising children, don't you know?
hahaha, no.
I shall say I am not coming close to getting involved in this land mine of a topic. However, outside of that, I have to disagree with your disagreeance, Shrimp. Now, things may be different in Canada, I wouldn't know. But I was having to deal with a different preacher every wednesday for three years of my life. Few were repeats, very few. Now that seriously adds up to a lot of different holy men. If there is one theme that all of them followed-- not just them, but my entire school's philosophy(the bible) followed-- was that of women being below men. My school library, what with consisting of 9 bookshelves, had an entire row-- about 20 or so books-- on how to be a proper wife. These taught how a woman should always have dinner made by the time the man is home, that she should organize his lecture notes, that she should prepare to praise god when they are both in the bedroom(I kid you not, it was put very similarly to that in one of the books). The preachers were just as bad. They, aside from the usually insanities, taught that men should hold the door for women-- not because it was polite-- but because it is your moral duty to help those inferior to you. That was just one of the ways, there were many others. These included, but were not limited to: Adam Came first, Eve is just a rib of Adam, not equal to the full skeleton(person), the bible shows women staying at home, men have always owned everything, "even false religions are smart enough to know men come first", and "God is a man, so it is obvious that men are better". Sorry, I can go right ahead and let the rest of this thread argue, I just had to speak up about that.
Well you've had sucky preachers, because of the several I've seen, none ever promoted such a thing. >_>
^^^
|
- I <3 F3nnies
- Jan 18 2009, 05:10:10 PM
RO in general is just pretty much fail, because like every Korean game, they're no remote sense of balance and to do anything you have to be a griefer to others. That's how it is with their shooters, their MMOs, and pretty much everything. For all I know, you might have to stab people to buy produce at their markets over there, only to find out the cashier is wielding a gun and thus makes off with your fruit.
- F3nny dear again
- Mar 29 2009, 09:06:24 PM
Anything with writing is easier than a freshman hoping to get asked to prom.
|
| |
|
Hammer Kirby
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:44:47 PM
Post #73
|
- Posts:
- 16,954
- Group:
- Commy Red
- Member
- #23
- Joined:
- September 5, 2006
- Identity
- Dart
|
- Abyssal_Shrimp
- Apr 14 2007, 02:40:50
- Darts
- Apr 13 2007, 22:37:51
Basically, you're saying that I don't get to say what's moral, right? Well, what gives you or the government the right to say what's moral instead?
Wait, did I say I got to say what was moral? Oh wait, no, I didn't. And I didn't make any argument consisting of "it's immoral" too. And the government doesn't really too. But that's not a point as well. Way to miss what I was saying, Darts.
Usually people justify the existence of welfare on moral grounds, talking about how it's immoral to let poor people starve. I always find it ironic when liberals claim that morals are non-existent when all of their arguments rely on some sort of moral reasoning. Relying on morals isn't a bad thing - it's just hypocritical to criticize others for doing something when you do it too.
I'm not saying this to you specifically - I'm saying it about liberals (i.e. welfare proponents) in general.
|
|
|
| |
|
Abyssal_Shrimp
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:47:11 PM
Post #74
|
GREGOR SMASH!
- Posts:
- 13,164
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #41
- Joined:
- September 9, 2006
- Identity
- Shrimp
|
Well I dunno. I haven't really taken a stance on this subject anyway, I just enjoy the fact that there's competent people to defend both sides of the argument to help me clear out my own opinions on this.
|
|
|
| |
|
F3nr1L
|
Apr 13 2007, 09:55:57 PM
Post #75
|
|
Unregistered
|
I fail to see how supporting welfare makes you a liberal. Or how you claim liberal say morals are nonexistent. You seem to mistaking them with nihilists.
I am also curious as to how, now that I know how welfare works, stoner black women with 47 kids manage to collect welfare and unemployment(they don't work, due to the addiction and birthing babies every day).
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|