2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyNo. It's about a sensational and potentially divisive story which you yourself raised, from an infamously untrustworthy source - Fox News - and now you cannot state categorically whether it's true or false. This is not the first time you've done something like this.
Fox news is not what this thread is about.
And then you attempt to denigrate those decent independent minded people who take exception to Fox News' unabashedly mendacious relationship with truth by referring to those people as "haters".
You even played your trusty Holocaust card in - wait for it - only your second post, straight away - as soon as somebody disagreed with you.
You're a piece of work, whodey. You're fumbling around trying to offend or incite people. To what end?
6 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe girl at Yale was the one trying to incite the masses and it worked. At best you could argue that I am participating in her trying to incite the masses by bringing up the story, however, my interest lies in questions about morality that facinate me and not in inciting people.
No. It's about a sensational and potentially divisive story which you yourself raised, from an infamously untrustworthy source - Fox News - and now you cannot state categorically whether it's true or false. This is not the first time you've done something like this.
And then you attempt to denigrate those decent independent minded people who take exception to of work, whodey. You're fumbling around trying to offend or incite people. To what end?
I guess what facinates me are moral positions that seem so outrageous that they seem indefensible on the surface, yet there seems to be always someone waiting to defend those outrageous positions. Naturally the cream of the crop of seemingly indefensible moral positions are those that defend the Holocaust and I guess it is why I brought it up. For example, I think those that were responsible for the Holocaust thought that they were doing "good" on the premise that Jews were "bad", therefore, doing away with them would result in making the world a better place.
As for the woman in question, the moral question about abortion is in play. What makes the decision to have an abortion moral or immoral? For example, does the moral position that the woman should have the right to choose superceede any and all other moral considerations such as the one I presented here? Where do people draw the imaginary moral lines in such situations and why?
As for news sources, it is their job to sell the news which means sensationalizing stories or even fabricating them as best they can in order to sell the stories and all news sources that I am aware of do this to some degree. Of course other reasons may include political activism of some kind but the main job at hand is to sell soap or they will be looking soon for another job soon. It just amuses me when people demonize a news organization based upon their percieved political bias that they disagree with and then try to paint news sources that are more in line with their political bias as somehow better. Of course I suppose you could argue that Fox News sensationalizes them at a greater rate but I think that is for another thread. Perhaps you would like to start a thread about Fox News? In fact, I think it would be facinating to see you back up your claims that they are as inaccurate as you say they are in comparison to their rivals. To be honest I have no idea if they are or not.
Originally posted by whodeyThe link on the SAME PAGE says it was a hoax.
Here is another web site that is NOT Fox news for all you fox news haters out there.
http://www.coedmagazine.com/news/7639
While looking for another web site about the affair it seems that Yale is now saying that the self induced pregnancies and abortions never happened as well as the art project being cancelled altogether. Whether this is true or not who knows? Really does it matter? What if it actually did happen? My question still stands.
http://www.coedmagazine.com/news/7652
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I have said before, it may well have been a hoax, however, that does not change the reason why I brought up this thread.
The link on the SAME PAGE says it was a hoax.
http://www.coedmagazine.com/news/7652
Hypothetically, if it had been true what say you? Would it have been a moral or immoral act or are you indifferent to the action?
Originally posted by whodeyWell then, your self-professed ignorance and credulity, along with your indifference to truth and ethics is duly noted. I will bear it mind when I read your pontificating posts on matters pertaining to truth and ethics in future.
In fact, I think it would be facinating to see you back up your claims that they are as inaccurate as you say they are in comparison to their rivals. To be honest I have no idea if they are or not.
In support of my claims about Fox News I cite its news and current affairs output. I also cite its web site. It seems to me, whodey, for all your purported "To be honest I have no idea if [Fox News is good journalism] or not" open-mindedness, what is actually going on here is - intellectually speaking - that network is kicking sand in your face.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhat moral position were you taking when you started this Thread with a hoax story, from a source renowned for hoax stories? And even now you still keep referring to this deliberate hoax as if it weren't a hoax, even though it would appear that you have admitted that you started the Thread with a hoax.
I guess what facinates me are moral positions that seem so outrageous that they seem indefensible on the surface, yet there seems to be always someone waiting to defend those outrageous positions. Naturally the cream of the crop of seemingly indefensible moral positions are those that defend the Holocaust and I guess it is why I brought it up.
And who are these people who "defend the Holocaust" you keep talking about? How many of them are there? Why do you consider them significant? Why does it fascinate you? Why do you always seem to bring up "defending the Holocaust" and "denying the Holocaust" and "misunderstanding the Holocaust" and "trivializing the Holocaust" and "something else blah blah the Holocaust" whenever people disagree with you? Is it to stifle debate? Is it because you get genuinely angry when people disagree with you and you want to say the meanest thing you can think of?
Quite frankly, I am beginning to find your moral position - certainly in terms of your apparent willingness to cheapen the greatest atrocity of the C20th for your feeble-minded, worthless debating ends - to be outrageous and repugnant.
Originally posted by whodeyThanks.
Here is another web site that is NOT Fox news for all you fox news haters out there.
http://www.coedmagazine.com/news/7639
While looking for another web site about the affair it seems that Yale is now saying that the self induced pregnancies and abortions never happened as well as the art project being cancelled altogether. Whether this is true or not who knows? Really does it matter? What if it actually did happen? My question still stands.
...
Ok, I think this is sick and stupid. On the other hand I don't see any ethical problem besides lying to cause a sensation.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWhoa, Godwin's law!
Could the Holocaust have been considered "art"? You know, all those malnurished deformed bodies walking around aimlessly might have brought out Hitlers artistic side. Of course originally he had been a failed artist so perhaps the Holocaust was cathartic for him in this regard.
My interest here is not whether the abortions were artistic so much as are they moral. What say you?
Originally posted by whodeyIt seems you started the thread to rave about the Holocaust and suggest that anyone who doesn't share your peculiar moral views is akin to a Nazi mass murderer.
As I have said before, it may well have been a hoax, however, that does not change the reason why I brought up this thread.
Hypothetically, if it had been true what say you? Would it have been a moral or immoral act or are you indifferent to the action?
I am indifferent to the actions of hoaxers. Your use of an obvious hoax is contemptible.
2 edits
Originally posted by rhemalogosDarwinism is a Scientific Theory ! It does not say anything about right and wrong, any more than newton's mechanics say anything about right and wrong !
right and wrong do exist contrary to the teleology of Darwinism. Abortion is wrong because the thing people rationalizing call a fetus is a baby. An innocent human being, who when killed, has been murdered. Art is good, but not everything goes.
1 edit
Originally posted by RetrovirusNot so fast. People can and have derived morality from Darwinian science. For example, the term survival of the fittest come to mind. I know of people who choose not to show empathy for those who are hanicapped in some way or of lower intellect than they because helping them goes against the natural order of what is known as survival of the fittest. The moral stance is, is that if you help them out you might weaken the gene pool, so to speak, which would be "bad". However, you are correct that science is merely a description of the material world and nothing more. It is human beings that then add meaning to it all.
Darwinism is a [b] Scientific Theory ! It does not say anything about right and wrong, any more than newton's mechanics say anything about right and wrong ![/b]