22 Apr 2011, 12:01 pm
22 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I guess I should rephrase, "unless *my version* of Jesus" was suddenly on the ballot 
Your "version" of Jesus?
Yes. I don't know how you could possibly assert Jesus wouldn't be a social liberal,
or at the very least not a conservative.
Since you evidently disagree, this would rationally imply that the character of Jesus is subjectively-interpreted.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
This is absurd. I can guarantee most liberals are not moral relativists. You're making the common and irritating fallacy of lumping those who have a different morality than you as amoral.
I could just as easily argue that economic conservatives like yourself are the true moral relativists. What with all the crap about Randian "rational self interest" and moral/economic egoism.
22 Apr 2011, 1:20 pm
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I guess I should rephrase, "unless *my version* of Jesus" was suddenly on the ballot
Your "version" of Jesus?
Yes. I don't know how you could possibly assert Jesus wouldn't be a social liberal,
or at the very least not a conservative.
Since you evidently disagree, this would rationally imply that the character of Jesus is subjectively-interpreted.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
This is absurd. I can guarantee most liberals are not moral relativists. You're making the common and irritating fallacy of lumping those who have a different morality than you as amoral.
I could just as easily argue that economic conservatives like yourself are the true moral relativists. What with all the crap about Randian "rational self interest" and moral/economic egoism.
How about you supporting people that use their own children as explosive devices (Palestinians)?
22 Apr 2011, 2:49 pm
22 Apr 2011, 6:12 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I guess I should rephrase, "unless *my version* of Jesus" was suddenly on the ballot
Your "version" of Jesus?
Yes. I don't know how you could possibly assert Jesus wouldn't be a social liberal,
or at the very least not a conservative.
Since you evidently disagree, this would rationally imply that the character of Jesus is subjectively-interpreted.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
This is absurd. I can guarantee most liberals are not moral relativists. You're making the common and irritating fallacy of lumping those who have a different morality than you as amoral.
I could just as easily argue that economic conservatives like yourself are the true moral relativists. What with all the crap about Randian "rational self interest" and moral/economic egoism.
How about you supporting people that use their own children as explosive devices (Palestinians)?
Wuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh??????????????
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
22 Apr 2011, 8:32 pm
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
22 Apr 2011, 9:08 pm
Bethie
Veteran
Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster
22 Apr 2011, 9:10 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
So, Inuyasha, which is it? Are liberals driven by a rigid, doctrinaire, morally absolutist fanaticism or are they moral relativists? Because your varying posts seem to rely on the first stereotype.
You're doing it wrong.
22 Apr 2011, 9:17 pm
Bethie wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
So, Inuyasha, which is it? Are liberals driven by a rigid, doctrinaire, morally absolutist fanaticism or are they moral relativists? Because your varying posts seem to rely on the first stereotype.
You're doing it wrong.
I've got to pick up a can next time I head down to the LOLware store
22 Apr 2011, 9:25 pm
22 Apr 2011, 9:34 pm
Master_Pedant wrote:
I think the real question here is why is Inuyasha trying to derail this thread with slanderous allegations that left-liberals support using children as explosives? Is it because of a deep moral cowardice and low integrity of character that has become the staple of modern Con artistry, exemplified by Mark Folely and Rush "popping" Limbaugh? Is it because of a deep seated intellectual relativism and soliphism where Inuyasha thinks Con artists can just state their wrong opinions as fact because reality is too leftwing for their tastes? Or is it because he needs to hide Con Artist support for Yigal Amir? Who knows??! ! I AM JUST ASKING QUESTIONS!! !
He could later add the suffix "notintendedtobeafactualstatement", which is apparently fine to do on the Senate floor (lying) so long as that is added at the end...
Example:
Inuyasha hates kangaroos, and supports non-voluntary kangaroo abortion
Notintendedtobeafactualstatement
22 Apr 2011, 11:17 pm
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I guess I should rephrase, "unless *my version* of Jesus" was suddenly on the ballot
Your "version" of Jesus?
Yes. I don't know how you could possibly assert Jesus wouldn't be a social liberal,
or at the very least not a conservative.
Since you evidently disagree, this would rationally imply that the character of Jesus is subjectively-interpreted.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
This is absurd. I can guarantee most liberals are not moral relativists. You're making the common and irritating fallacy of lumping those who have a different morality than you as amoral.
I could just as easily argue that economic conservatives like yourself are the true moral relativists. What with all the crap about Randian "rational self interest" and moral/economic egoism.
How about you supporting people that use their own children as explosive devices (Palestinians)?
Wuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh??????????????Anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, never mind the fact that Palestinians are strapping bombs to their own children and blowing up their children by remote in a crowded marketplace.
Liberals idea of morality is their way or the highway and the ends justify the means. Conservatives by and large do not believe the ends always justify the means, and there are some things a Conservative will usually not do that a Liberal would have no qualms about doing.
Master_Pedant wrote:
I think the real question here is why is Inuyasha trying to derail this thread with slanderous allegations that left-liberals support using children as explosives?
Are you pro-Israel or anti-Israel? If you are Israelis are a bunch of monsters routine, and completely ignore what the Palestinians are doing that causes the Israelis to retaliate, then actually yes you are supporting people whom blow up their own children. That is a cold hard fact, you don't like that tough. Facts aren't always pleasant.
22 Apr 2011, 11:24 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Apr 2011, 12:40 am
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I guess I should rephrase, "unless *my version* of Jesus" was suddenly on the ballot
Your "version" of Jesus?
Yes. I don't know how you could possibly assert Jesus wouldn't be a social liberal,
or at the very least not a conservative.
Since you evidently disagree, this would rationally imply that the character of Jesus is subjectively-interpreted.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
This is absurd. I can guarantee most liberals are not moral relativists. You're making the common and irritating fallacy of lumping those who have a different morality than you as amoral.
I could just as easily argue that economic conservatives like yourself are the true moral relativists. What with all the crap about Randian "rational self interest" and moral/economic egoism.
How about you supporting people that use their own children as explosive devices (Palestinians)?
Wuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh??????????????Anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, never mind the fact that Palestinians are strapping bombs to their own children and blowing up their children by remote in a crowded marketplace.
Liberals idea of morality is their way or the highway and the ends justify the means. Conservatives by and large do not believe the ends always justify the means, and there are some things a Conservative will usually not do that a Liberal would have no qualms about doing.
Master_Pedant wrote:
I think the real question here is why is Inuyasha trying to derail this thread with slanderous allegations that left-liberals support using children as explosives?
Are you pro-Israel or anti-Israel? If you are Israelis are a bunch of monsters routine, and completely ignore what the Palestinians are doing that causes the Israelis to retaliate, then actually yes you are supporting people whom blow up their own children. That is a cold hard fact, you don't like that tough. Facts aren't always pleasant.
How does caring for people because age, poverty, or disability causes them to be vulnerable? As a matter of fact, I see hardheartedness as a conservative point of pride - either pull yourself up by your bootstraps like me, or just go and die. On top of that, I see intolerance for the other - whether that's gays, Muslims, immigrants, labor union members, or poor people - as a stable for the right rather than the left.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
23 Apr 2011, 12:45 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
23 Apr 2011, 12:55 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Bethie wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I guess I should rephrase, "unless *my version* of Jesus" was suddenly on the ballot
Your "version" of Jesus?
Yes. I don't know how you could possibly assert Jesus wouldn't be a social liberal,
or at the very least not a conservative.
Since you evidently disagree, this would rationally imply that the character of Jesus is subjectively-interpreted.
I sincerely doubt Jesus would be a liberal, for the simple reason that Jesus believed that there was such a thing as write and wrong. While he believed in forgiveness, that is not the same thing as moral relativism.
This is absurd. I can guarantee most liberals are not moral relativists. You're making the common and irritating fallacy of lumping those who have a different morality than you as amoral.
I could just as easily argue that economic conservatives like yourself are the true moral relativists. What with all the crap about Randian "rational self interest" and moral/economic egoism.
How about you supporting people that use their own children as explosive devices (Palestinians)?
Wuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhh??????????????Anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, never mind the fact that Palestinians are strapping bombs to their own children and blowing up their children by remote in a crowded marketplace.
Liberals idea of morality is their way or the highway and the ends justify the means. Conservatives by and large do not believe the ends always justify the means, and there are some things a Conservative will usually not do that a Liberal would have no qualms about doing.
Master_Pedant wrote:
I think the real question here is why is Inuyasha trying to derail this thread with slanderous allegations that left-liberals support using children as explosives?
Are you pro-Israel or anti-Israel? If you are Israelis are a bunch of monsters routine, and completely ignore what the Palestinians are doing that causes the Israelis to retaliate, then actually yes you are supporting people whom blow up their own children. That is a cold hard fact, you don't like that tough. Facts aren't always pleasant.
How does caring for people because age, poverty, or disability causes them to be vulnerable? As a matter of fact, I see hardheartedness as a conservative point of pride - either pull yourself up by your bootstraps like me, or just go and die. On top of that, I see intolerance for the other - whether that's gays, Muslims, immigrants, labor union members, or poor people - as a stable for the right rather than the left.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
That top sentence is supposed to read:
How does caring for people because age, poverty, or disability that causes them to be vulnerable make you a moral relativist?
I should have proof read what I had written before sending it off; otherwise I would have caught that it didn't make any sense.
Sorry.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
