Figleaf

Let's be precise: I think it is unreasonable to con people into believing that the arbitrary, culturally promulagated standards of beauty can be over-ridden successfully by merely pretending they don't exist.

I've never liked hearing sanctimonious rich prigs telling us or our governments that we should give more of our hard earned taxes to their private causes. Now Bono has been kind enough to lay bare the true paucity of ethics among these whited sepulchres. http://www.latimes.com/business/investing/...1&cset=true

I predicted this same possibility many years ago, but observing the surprising stupidity rampant in the wealthier classes, I have re-assessed their likelihood of establishing stable genetic superiority.

Look up the root of glamour Oh, please -- I'm well acquainted with the etymology. I don't need to look it up. What the hell is it supposed to tell me? I don't think you understand my point ... If, as you suggest, there is no distinguishing relative degrees of beauty, how could someone get the idea to try?

Hey G.F., how's B?

Perfect! Exactly as expected ... infighting will be the death of this government. They're tories, after all -- they just can't help themselves.

l

Posting in a better forum now...

speaking of liberal departures, read my signature

I won't miss the idiots.

You know how you can tell most of Harper's opponents can't come up with better ideas when all they do is say Harper's a scary Republican akin to Bush. I'd say Harper's closer to Clinton then Bush. What would make you say that? In fact there are many points of similarity between Harper and Bush, or where Harper appears to defer to Bush: social conservatism (e.g. same sex marriage), harsh punishment for crimes, softwood lumber, the idea of invading Iraq, and sustaining Israel's occupation of Palestine. That said, it is only fair to note that Harper has differed from and disputed American positions from time to time as well.

Speaking of liberal departures...

Speaking of liberal departures ...

Basically, it's a way to explain the world around them in a way that conforms to their preexisting beliefs. Thing is, "facts" are in the eye of the beholder. That may be true of "facts", but not of facts.

Although I am not overly religious but definitely support Christianity for reasons pertaining to culture and to the goodness of promoting an anti-pagan society, I will attempt to answer your question. Relating to Christianity, God teaches "Thou shalt no kill", so killing or murdering is totally against the law of God with absolutely no justification to kill whatever the reason and which also constitutes a mortal sin. This of course is coupled with my private convictions as to why it is wrong to kill. Relating to secularism, if I learned or came to my own conclusion that it is wrong to kill but with no conviction other than my own logic, I could be tempted to kill for reasons I consider justifiable and could very well complete the act depending on circumstance. I don't get it. Within the example, both persons report that it is 'wrong' to commit 'murder'. You suggest that the difference it that one is externally imposed and the other internally imposed (thus subject to internal reassessment). I don't see how that changes the morality of the initial (unreassessed) reported view that murder is wrong. Your position fails to explain how the views are different while they are held.

[

Harper's slur was in response to Iggy's comment. Absent Iggy's comment, Harper's comment is even more inexplicable. ... Why is Harper's comment "even more inexplicable?" What do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion? ' Becaaaause -- if Iggy had never made the 'war crime' comment, then Harper would have even less basis (and no occasion) to call Liberals 'anti-Israel'. He may not have had the occasion then...but he definitely had the basis. Absolutely not. No basis. It was utterly incorrect, wrong, false.

Harper's slur was in response to Iggy's comment. Absent Iggy's comment, Harper's comment is even more inexplicable. ... Why is Harper's comment "even more inexplicable?" What do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion? ' Becaaaause -- if Iggy had never made the 'war crime' comment, then Harper would have even less basis (and no occasion) to call Liberals 'anti-Israel'.

The idea that ethics(morals) can't exist without religion doesn't just strike me as incorrect. It seems, moreover to be nobsensical. Maybe some religious type will help me understand by answering this question: If you poll a religious person and a non-religious personand each one tells you she thinks "Murder is wrong", how is one moral and the other not?

That's what Karl Marx said.

The rest of my post still stands. And as far as the Bible being a work of fiction, no doubt communities with those exact names did not exist, and no doubt Lot's wife did not turn to a pillar of salt. However, the moral of the story still stands. That makes no sense. The activities in Sodom are said to be 'wrong' because the story says God said so. But if the story is wrong about Lot's wife, how can you know it's not wrong about what God thinks?

How is it possible for a woman to even conceive of improving her appearance as you describe if the measures of improvement don't exist? How can there be a concept of an 'average-looking' woman without a distribution in the range of attractiveness? Look here, we are discussing the proposition that 'every girl deserves to feel beautiful'. The statement itself posits a meaning and value to the term 'beautiful', otherwise how/why could it even be possible to deserve it? They're not saying 'deserves to feel glubsuff' or 'deserves to feel pezzloy'. For the statement to have a meaning, 'beauty' must have a meaning. The statement is clear enough in its intent ... that's not the problem. The problem is that it is wrong, because like Eastwood says in Unforgiven, 'deserve's' got nothing to do with it.

[

Yeah I particularly like the parts about staffs turning into snakes, voices coming out of burning bushes and mannah falling from heaven. Don't overlook the 'history' of men who lived for hundreds of years, or the superman who couldn't take a haircut, or the time YHVH tried to kill a guy but failed, or the woman who turned into salt, or the guy who got eaten alive and lived to tell about it ...