Originally posted by dk3nnygrin. (falls out of chair laughing)
This "evil" method was also used by people in my country to gain freedom from the English.
Terrorism has many faces.
Really worked well didn't it? Blowing up innocents?
When is your national day of "celebration" for this brave, moral triumph?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThe killing of innocents isn't celebrated but there were certainly innocents killed.
grin. (falls out of chair laughing)
Really worked well didn't it? Blowing up innocents?
When is your national day of "celebration" for this brave, moral triumph?
However, our nation is celebrated every day, from when a word from the Irish language is spoken to when we raise a pint on St Patricks day.
If terrorism hasn't been employed it wouldn't be the country it is today.
Originally posted by dottewellI don't know what you mean by 'value' in this context. We have good moral reasons not to treat you paternalistically, and good moral reasons not to legislate so as to restrict your autonomy. Your right to your marrow is, like all rights, defeasible under sufficiently bizarre circumstances. When approaching moral questions we should take autonomy as of fundamental value, and considerations of autonomy may be decisive in some cases, but there is no guarantee of this. The value of autonomy doesn't change case by case, but in different cases there will be weaker or stronger reason to act coercively.
So if I had not promised my bone marrow, but it was statistically likely I was the only match in the world for the children, I would still have a right to destroy my body.
Without wishing to retread ground from the "free speech" thread, are there good moral reasons to value this right in this case? (As opposed to pragmatic reasons not to legislate to re ...[text shortened]... in which it is a morally relevant factor, or does it depend on the use I intend to put it to?
Originally posted by no1marauderAs an enemy, Zero, you are absolutely priceless. You do all my work for me. You and perhaps Stan are probably the only two people in the UNIVERSE who will lament the defeat of the Fascist Empire of Japan in World War II.
V-J Day.
How many innocent Chinese died when they invaded?
How many died in the pacific war that they started? Or doesn't Pearl Harbor count as "starting it"?
Are you sure you want to also support THAT IMPERIAL JAPANESE FASCIST GOVERNMENT ALONG WITH SADDAM'S FASCIST GOVERNMENT?
You are just plain Weird. But you are an excellent enemy. Harmless and intellectually empty.
What I don't understand is why an innocent guy like STANG can get banned and yet a guy like you who has EXACTLY THE SAME MESSAGE AND CONTENT AS STANG gets to post all you want. Name one thing that Stan has ever said that you don't agree with. Please. And I won't hold my breath.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI answered your question. Since it is a part of the national myth that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused the Japanese to surrender and since many innocents were "blown up" in those bombings, that would be our day of national celebration for "blowing up innocents". It has nothing to do with the moral justification of the war against Japan: you seem incapable of carrying two thoughts in your head at the same time.
As an enemy, Zero, you are absolutely priceless. You do all my work for me. You and perhaps Stan are probably the only two people in the UNIVERSE who will lament the defeat of the Fascist Empire of Japan in World War II.
How many innocent Chinese died when they invaded?
How many died in the pacific war that they started? Or doesn't Pearl Harbor coun ng that Stan has ever said that you don't agree with. Please. And I won't hold my breath.
STANG was unfairly permanently banned. I didn't agree with his "America bashing"; both STANG and you suffer from the same delusion - that the acts of temporary governments are what the country stands for. STANG's fetishism also made it difficult for him to see that the problem isn't the US per se, the problem is an attempt by an oligarchic few to remake the world to accomodate their control over all of it. Sometimes it seems that you almost understand this (which STANG never seemed to grasp) but then you go off into a raving about "National Socialists" and some such rot.
Originally posted by no1marauderSTANG's fetishism also made it difficult for him to see that the problem isn't the US per se, the problem is an attempt by an oligarchic few to remake the world to accomodate their control over all of it.
I answered your question. Since it is a part of the national myth that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused the Japanese to surrender and since many innocents were "blown up" in those bombings, that would be our day of national celebration for "blowing up innocents". It has nothing to do with the moral justification of the war against Japa ...[text shortened]... grasp) but then you go off into a raving about "National Socialists" and some such rot.
For a second there, No1, you sounded like a half-way rational and objective observer. Don't try changing personalities in the middle of this thing: it would cheapen the whole tawdry affair.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThat has been my position for a long time on that issue, one I've consistently argued. So I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about; do I need one of them there Secret Decoder Rings like everybody does for the Bible?
[b]STANG's fetishism also made it difficult for him to see that the problem isn't the US per se, the problem is an attempt by an oligarchic few to remake the world to accomodate their control over all of it.
For a second there, No1, you sounded like a half-way rational and objective observer. Don't try changing personalities in the middle of this thing: it would cheapen the whole tawdry affair.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudermarauder: "Part of the problem is that people like Ivanhoe always try to denigrate the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a "right" (always in quotes) to do a particular thing they feel is bad. ; .... "
Part of the problem is that people like Ivanhoe always try to denigrate the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a "right" (always in quotes) to do a particular thing they feel is bad. This is misleading; the Fundamental Rights in question are far broader. I would answer his question this way:
1. Since people have no right not to be off ...[text shortened]... mstances.
Instances of the second I fail to see how they can ever be morally wrong.
" ... people like Ivanhoe ... " ?????
" ... always (!!??) try to denigrate (??) the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a "right" (always in quotes) ... ???
Innuendo and insinuations by the manipulating marauder.
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe truth hurts, don't it? It's a common technique by those who want to limit the Fundamental Rights that we all have as a consequence of Natural Law to try to belittle their assertion in whatever context. You do it constantly.
[b]marauder: "Part of the problem is that people like Ivanhoe always try to denigrate the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a "right" (always in quotes) to do a particular thing they feel is bad. ; .... "
" ... people like Ivanhoe ... " ?????
" ... always (!!??) try to denigrate (??) the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a " always in quotes) ... ???
Innuendo and insinuations by the manipulating marauder.[/b]
And also, as usual, you are trying to take the thread off-topic.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderHa ha ha ..... the usual BS from the marauder.
The truth hurts, don't it? It's a common technique by those who want to limit the Fundamental Rights that we all have as a consequence of Natural Law to try to belittle their assertion in whatever context. You do it constantly.
And also, as usual, you are trying to take the thread off-topic.
Listen marauder, you're whole "analyses" of my position is one big strawman ... and you know it, manipulating liar ...
Maybe you also hold the opinion one has a right to lie ... in fact I'm sure of this. You, the marauder, have a right to lie while the others don't. Why ? Because the latter would violate your rights ..... You're toooooooo clever, manipulating marauder.
Originally posted by ivanhoeThis is typical. You take the thread off-topic with a flurry of personal attacks. If I wind up replying in kind, you'll alert my posts and cry to the Forum Mods. I'm sick of your BS, Ivanhoe; either respond to the points I've raised or STFU.
Ha ha ha ..... the usual BS from the marauder.
Listen marauder, you're whole "analyses" of my position is one big strawman ... and you know it, manipulating liar ...
Maybe you also hold the opinion one has a right to lie ... in fact I'm sure of this. You, the marauder, have a right to lie while the others don't. Why ? Because the latter would violate your rights ..... You're toooooooo clever, manipulating marauder.
Originally posted by ivanhoeGo read your first post in this thread, and then see if you can honestly state that you didn't have a personal agenda. You have a Sesame Street view on morality, and anything that doesn't agree with Big Bird's feelings on the subject is characterized as 'evil'. Fine, but even if you think that it is evil for one to, say, physically harm himself through his own actions, how would that nullify his right to self-autonomy?
[b]marauder: "Part of the problem is that people like Ivanhoe always try to denigrate the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a "right" (always in quotes) to do a particular thing they feel is bad. ; .... "
" ... people like Ivanhoe ... " ?????
" ... always (!!??) try to denigrate (??) the Fundamental Right in question by declaring it a " ...[text shortened]... always in quotes) ... ???
Innuendo and insinuations by the manipulating marauder.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloLJ: " ..... how would that nullify his right to self-autonomy?
Go read your first post in this thread, and then see if you can honestly state that you didn't have a personal agenda. You have a Sesame Street view on morality, and anything that doesn't agree with Big Bird's feelings on the subject is characterized as 'evil'. Fine, but even if you think that it is evil for one to, say, physically harm himself through his own actions, how would that nullify his right to self-autonomy?
Do you really think that is the actual question ? ... a question of "nullifying" ? It is not. This is a misconception on your part.
Would you let your son or daughter get involved in taking illegal drugs, let's say crack or meth ?