• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

you know a lot of people believe that a god can/does exist..but that doesn't mean they buy into the bible or organized religion. It's the claim that the bible is god's word, a claim that it's some special/guiding document, (when it's pretty dumb and stupid) is what people laugh at.

There could very well be a god but thinking the bible, or the koran, is word from god, basically says that you think god is pretty stupid. And I don't think that is true..if there is one.

I give god more credit.




theREALkoreaboy said:
what you don't seem to understand is that many great thinkers over the centuries were driven to explore and learn because they wanted to better understand GOD, and man's relationship to GOD, and the nature of his creation.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
HabsAddict said:
You guys have a massive, massive problem with presumptions. To a comical degree.

I'm "mostly" libertarian and "mostly" social agnostic.

On the other hand, all I see is group think attacks on anyone who doesn't follow the...well...group think.
Click to expand...

I wasn't presuming anything, I was ****ing asking you.

Holy shit.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
so you're a "genius" now?
Click to expand...


well yes, I am, but that's not what I was referring to in that post. You're able to read, read it again. Plenty of geniuses, included one Jesus H. Christ gave us mature, demanding moral axioms to help us guide our lives without shirking the responsibility and trying to fit everything in under a book of rules thousands of years old.

and moral/ethical codes that have been evolving for 2000 years are now "silly"?
Click to expand...

no, moral/ethical codes have been evolving for 2000 years now. the problem is that you are still relying on the rules from thousands of years ago, and ignoring the evolution that has occurred since then.

and still with the fixation on the 2000 year old book stuff and the "religious people are stupid and can't think for themselves" stuff.
Click to expand...

truth hurts.
 
a perfectly on point quote from "lost in transition" that sums things up.

"We have found that moral individualism is widespread among emerging adults and that a sizable minority professes to believe in moral relativism. We have also found that (they) resort to a variety of explanations about what makes anything good or bad, wrong or right- many of which reflect weak thinking and provide a fragile basis upon which to build robust moral positions of thought and living.........We found that the majority of emerging adults say that they do not or would not refer to moral traditions or authorities or religious or philosophical ethics to make difficult moral decisions, but rather would decide by what would personally make them happy or would help them to get ahead in life. Finally, we discovered that the vast majority of emerging adults could not engage in a discussion about real moral dilemmas, or either could not think of any dilemma they had recently faced or misunderstood what a moral dilemma is." and....

"...(I)f these emerging adults are lost, it is because the larger culture and society into which they are being inducted is also lost. The forces of social reproduction here are powerful. That so many emerging adults today are adrift in their moral thinking (though not necessarily in how they live) tells us that the adult world into which they are emerging is also adrift. The families, schools, religious communities, sports teams, and other voluntary organizations of civil society are failing to provide many young people with the kind of moral education and training for them to realize, for example, that moral individualism and relativism make no sense, that they cannot be reasonably defended or sustained, that some alternative views must be necessary if we are to be at all reasonable when it comes to moral concerns." and finally....

"Our point is simply this: the adult world of American culture and society is failing very many of its youth when it comes to moral matters. We are letting them down, sending many, probably most, of them out into the world without basic intellectual tools and basic personal formation needed to think and express even the most elementary of reasonably defensible moral thoughts and claims. And that itself, we think, is morally wrong."
 
We found that the majority of emerging adults say that they do not or would not refer to moral traditions or authorities or religious or philosophical ethics to make difficult moral decisions, but rather would decide by what would personally make them happy or would help them to get ahead in life.
Click to expand...

How does this apply in this situation?

Being in favour of same-sex marriage doesn't make me happy personally or help me to get ahead in life. I don't get why you keep insisting that we're somehow being selfish here.
 
I love the "bully" narrative the left wants to hang on Romney. Meanwhile, let's ALL forget that was friends with a blinding racist and only stopped when it became an inconvenient truth.

When sermons of Obama’s Chicago pastor, Jeremiah Wright, surfaced during the Iowa primaries, it threatened to derail Obama’s campaign. ABC aired one where Wright screamed, “Goddamn America!” Edward Klein interviewed Wright, who told him Obama’s team tried to buy his silence.

‘Man, the media ate me alive,” Wright told me when we met in his office at Chicago’s Kwame Nkrumah Academy. “After the media went ballistic on me, I received an e-mail offering me money not to preach at all until the November presidential election.”

“Who sent the e-mail?” I asked Wright.

“It was from one of Barack’s closest friends.”

“He offered you money?”

“Not directly,” Wright said. “He sent the offer to one of the members of the church, who sent it to me.”

“How much money did he offer you?”

“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.

“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”

“Yes,” Wright said. “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me. I don’t know if he had a wire on him. His security was outside somewhere.




Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nation...e_wright_io9jneobl3fUF0cb7LpcNM#ixzz1umBPf7hh
Click to expand...


13.1N006.wright1.C--300x300.jpg
 
Going all the way back to 65' with a limp dick case like this, suggests that the Obama smear team doesn't have much mud to fling. And the timing of all this, the next day after Obama spoke sweet nothings on gay marriage, says wow, what a timely piece of news.
 
It's stupid to bring up past transgressions from when he was a youth for the sake of harming his current image, but what he did to that other kid was seriously ****ed up at the same time.
 
hockeylover said:
How does this apply in this situation?

Being in favour of same-sex marriage doesn't make me happy personally or help me to get ahead in life. I don't get why you keep insisting that we're somehow being selfish here.
Click to expand...

you're kidding, right? you havent been here for the past 10 pages while an entire peanut gallery of 20-somethings had aneurysms over teachings from "a 2000 year old book"? or how "despicable" people like me were for suggesting that sociological institutions that have evolved for centuries might not be things to trifle with?

you people have been perfect examples of the thesis of this book. social, moral, ethical, and religious norms are objects of scorn for you. you definite morality entirely on YOUR terms, it is entirely individualistic, and it is entirely relativistic. you people are poster children for what this book is studying.
 
i know precisely what moral relativism is. no one is right or wrong. there are no objective moral standards. everything is equally valid depending on the point of view of the beholder, so everything must be tolerated.

its what i accused zeke of pages ago- it means standing for NOTHING. except for yourself. morality is how the individual perceives it to be, that perception is mostly rooted in the individual's self-interest, and no one has the right to tell the individual differently. i know precisely what it means.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
you're kidding, right? you havent been here for the past 10 pages while an entire peanut gallery of 20-somethings had aneurysms over teachings from "a 2000 year old book"? or how "despicable" people like me were for suggesting that sociological institutions that have evolved for centuries might not be things to trifle with?

you people have been perfect examples of the thesis of this book. social, moral, ethical, and religious norms are objects of scorn for you. you definite morality entirely on YOUR terms, it is entirely individualistic, and it is entirely relativistic. you people are poster children for what this book is studying.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question at all.

You quoted a book that said that my ethics were guided by what is beneficial to me, what makes me happy, or what helps me get ahead in life.

Explain to me how allowing same-sex marriage is beneficial to me, a 25 year old straight, female. Explain to me how this helps me to "get ahead in life".
 
I can't believe this schmuck is still seriously trying to convince himself that as the one discriminating against people based on sexual orientation he is the moral and unselfish voice here. I really hope he is just trying to stir the pot. Otherwise its just sad.
 
hockeylover said:
You didn't answer my question at all.
Click to expand...

i've been answering your question repeatedly and consistently for pages now. you and many of your pals here have been arguing that there are no moral, social, religious, or ethical codes that can trump what you as individuals feel is right. in fact, the more venerable and long-standing the code, the more scorn you seem to heap on it. so when people like me try to explain to you why overturning one of the most important and longstanding moral, social, and religious codes there is in traditional marriage is a mistake, you respond by telling me that no one or nothing should be able to tell you or anyone else what to do.

it is beneficial (and selfish) for you or for anyone to elevate themself to a position where they don't feel constrained by anything. it is also beneficial for you to align yourself to what you feel is the dominant viewpoint of your peergroup, which is why you appealed awhile back to the "it's what the majority of us think nowadays" argument.

you are perfectly modelling moral individualism, and moral relativism because it is extremely convenient (but also selfish and arrogant) for an individual to remove any constraints they feel are out there to satisfying their needs, wants, and desires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top