Jump to content

logical1

Member
  • Posts

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

logical1's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. I think the Bush administration has been far too weak in dealing with terrorists and far too compromising to the international community by lacking the courage to publically identify Islamic Fundamentalism as America's true enemy and my boss feels the same way about it. The West is fighting an entire ideology that is diametrically opposed to our values. The specific terrorist groups are merely products of a bigger problem. Our leadership hasn't been strong enough to state that publically so I feel that the potential may exist for them to bend to the concerns of Saddam sympathizers if things aren't handled correctly. My ideal scenario would have been if someone would have pulled the pin and dropped a grenade into that hole but it didn't happen. Now we have the former Iraqi president in custody to be tried on an international stage by folks who have the capacity to screw the whole thing up by cowering to international concerns. I have a sincere interest in the details of the prosecution's case. I'd like to know that a clear legitimate charge exists under Iraqi law and that the number of appeals will be fewer than the number of UN resolutions that we tolerated. By the way, what exactly is "universal" law.
  2. Rightturnonred, I usually don't respond to posts like yours but apparently I owe everyone on the board an apology for not recognizing that there was such an informed authority and confident advocate of Iraqi law as yourself posting regularly here. Funny, I hadn't guessed you an expert on anything from your previous posts. Bush did say clearly that Saddam would be tried under Iraqi law by Iraqis. I don't think that Saddam's actions have been any secret to the Iraqi people before now do you ? How exactly has Saddam and his sons been able to dodge such a sound judicial system for this many decades having committed so many atrocities so openly so often ? Is it simply a difference in human resource management philosophy that keeps president Bush from shooting his underlings in the head like Saddam does whenever he feels like it or might there be some major differences in our legal systems ? My boss may in fact think that the Iraqi's at present are "too stupid" to put together their own tribunal. I don't exactly think there are too many Thomas Jefferson or James Madison types in the Iraqi political landscape just yet. Don't get me wrong. An old fashioned lynching, as you seem to be unopposed to wouldn't exactly break my heart either. However, I think we all know that Saddam's trial will be carefully overseen by the international community wherever it takes place so that's probably not going to happen. I would just like to be confident that Saddam will be viewed to have been tried justly and found guilty in the eyes of the Arab community and given what he deserves without an Iraqi court being seen as a U.S led puppet show subsequently giving Arabs reason to view Saddam as a martyr. Until then my "idiot" boss and I will watch carefully as the events unfold.
  3. I think the problem lies in the premise that "serving the people" has to somehow be separate from serving one's self. There really is no such entity as "the people". There are only individual people. In our present culture, bureaucrats can and do use the motive of doing something for "the people" to get away with nearly anything they want. The fact that a certain number of "the people" may be opposed to contributing to partial birth abortions, subsidizing philosophies in public schools that they are opposed to, perpetuating the dependancy of entire segments of our society etc. etc. under threat of imprisonment is overlooked by liberals and conservatives as the lesser of evils. The argument for a collective mentality is always that nothing would be accomplished if we didn't allow the government the latitude to trample the individual rights of "the minority"(an individual is the smallest minority of all). This is an enormous falsehood that has been allowed to remain prevalent by both liberals and conservatives. The liberals tend to lean toward a socialist type thinking where the ideal of "the greater good" is the people or the state (sound familiar). The conservatives "greater good" is God (which has been around a bit longer but produces the same result). Both motives have proven to be extremely dangerous throughout history. The fact is, government produces nothing. Everything is produced by private industry which can remain regulated by a free market economy without government interference. If you don't think that things would get done without the government, take a look at the skyline in New York City. That was an endeavor funded by private citizens for their own profit which employs a countless number of people and benefits everyone. The government never has and never will do anything even remotely as significant for "the people". Politicians both liberal and conservative have lost sight of the only proper purpose of a government which is the protection of individual rights. The axioms of what both parties stand for can be reduced to how they "feel" about any particular issue. "Feelings" are an irrational non-objective standard. With that standard in place and accepted as valid, our individual rights and liberties will continue to be whittled away by a bureacrats "feelings" until either God or "the people" makes slaves of us all.
  4. Here's a question my boss posed to me the other day. Maybe some of you have the answer. I'm sure it's been considered (I hope) but I haven't heard the answer. If Saddam is tried in Iraq under Iraqi law, is there a specific law that he broke? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to have people executed ? Is it illegal in Iraq for the president to do anything ? I don't believe they can charge him with crimes against humanity because that is international law not Iraqi law. I hope it's something that the Bush administration has considered carefully. It would be embarrassing if a law had to be quickly put on the books before the trial or if he had to be tried in international court to get a conviction after a ridiculous display of Iraqi justice (or lack of). I think people take it for granted that the things that he did are illegal. In some parts of the world for a person in power they aren't. I think people take it for granted that justice in a case like this would prevail. In a large portion of the world it doesn't. Any thoughts ?
  5. Elder, please read your last paragraph. It sounds like the stated motives of just about every liberal politician out there. I'll take those that wish to claw, thank you. My paycheck can not withstand anymore selfless consideration for "the greater good". I feel far more comfortable with a policy maker who's primary concern is their own political ambition as opposed to a policy maker with an "agenda". Watch your back when a politician says he's in office to "make a difference and serve the people". You Christians really need to teach these guys the "collection plate" rules. They seem to think it's mandatory. Politicians that are only concerned with re-election tend to avoid any significant action lest that action be judged by the voters. Subsequently, they do less damage. Since when has a bureaucrat been the solution to anything anyway ? I don't need one to fix my life. Do you ? Laissez faire is the only government policy that I subscribe to.
  6. Elder, conscience as a guide is no more or less so for an Atheist than it is for a Christian. A Christian has free will just as well as an Atheist. Some Christians experience no guilt for doing things that other Christians might feel very guilty about doing. Thus an individuals conscience, regardless of their philosophy, serves as their guide. The difference is the standard that the conscience adheres to and to what degree. An Atheist may have no standard whatsoever in which case he'd be better off being a Christian because than he would at least have some source of philosophical guidance which is essential for long term survival. There is in fact something that you don't know about or recognize. It is a moral guide based on reason and individual rights. It is what I try to adhere to with the same dedication as the most devoted of Christians. Here are some examples. I do not sacrifice myself to others or accept the sacrifice of others to myself. Therefore, I do not steal and I do not kill or exercise physical force against others except, of course, in self defense. I recognize that everyone must rely on their accurate perception of reality for survival therefore I do not lie as it is an attempt to distort the facts of reality. I recognize that if I violate the rights of another individual, I must sacrifice those same rights myself which I will not do. I do not do drugs etc. as it is not in my own rational self interest to do so. It is a moral guide that holds that one's own happiness is the moral purpose of one's life and recognizes the right of the same to every individual. It is not pragmatic. It is not "anything goes". It is a "value for value" philosophy. It holds that one's own life and rational (rational being a key word) self interest are the highest of values. It acknowledges the "ownership" of one's own life. It recognizes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as essential, demonstrable principles born out of the facts of reality pertaining to human nature. It is consistent with the system of capitalism which has been the single most powerful component in the prosperity of humanity in the history of the world. It is an objective standard that can be supported by reason. It does not acknowledge the subjective or the unknown as factual. You would be hard pressed to present a moral issue that I am incapable of responding to using this standard.
  7. You have the right idea Elder ! You and I should not be forced to contribute the product of our labor to people that we don't know or endeavours that we perhaps might oppose. We should be obliged to contribute to our own protection and security. Beyond that what we choose to contribute to should be up to each individuals own volition. The problem lies in the fact that when a policy maker makes a decision, they are relying on some philosophical basis for the answer unless they are merely pragmatic (which often times is the case). If the philosophical standard that they utilize is Christianity for instance, they might determine that taking your money to provide for "those in need" is the "right thing to do". (It is either right or it is not, it can't be both. Elder, if it's not right, what philosophical basis are you using to make that determination ? It's not Christianity.) Policy makers take your money in the name of Democracy (which is only tyranny by majority if not based on valid principles) in order to justify the argument that it hasn't been "forced" on "the people". In fact, it has indeed been forced on those who oppose it. This process is used by religiously inclined conservatives to impose moral standards on those who oppose those standards and is hijacked by non-religious liberals to take money for things we are opposed to. Their is no objective standard being used to reconcile these differences and so continues the never ending "battle of opinions" between liberals and conservatives. It has progressed to a nightmarish state where a Baptist minister who is vehemently opposed to abortion must make a regular involuntary contribution to the federal partial birth abortion fund. If you think that things can't get worse, ask an older Jew or a Russian. Keep in mind, pre-nazi Germany was an advanced, educated culture and was known as "the land of poets and philosophers". Religion and mystic, subjective philosophy was rampid. A good book on this subject is "The Ominous Parallels" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff. One of the ongoing arguments that has been center stage in our culture has been whether or not abortion is proper. The correct argument should be whether or not we should be forced to contribute to things which we are opposed to. As long as our policy makers rely on subjective philosophies as their guide, we will continue down the road to "working for the collective" and all the horrors that go along with that kind of thinking. It is inevitable. A reversal can not occur without a philosophical reversal occuring. Ironically, it appears that religious individuals have been and will continue to lose the most by refusing to reject their own subjective standards in the realm of government policy. It seems that adopting an objective standard based on individual rights as opposed to a subjective standard like Christianity in matters of policy is their only possible real "savior".
  8. You have the right idea Elder ! You and I should not be forced to contribute the product of our labor to people that we don't know or endeavours that we perhaps might oppose. We should be obliged to contribute to our own protection and security. Beyond that what we choose to contribute to should be up to each individuals own volition. The problem lies in the fact that when a policy maker makes a decision, they are relying on some philosophical basis for the answer unless they are merely pragmatic (which often times is the case). If the philosophical standard that they utilize is Christianity for instance, they might determine that taking your money to provide for "those in need" is the "right thing to do". (It is either right or it is not, it can't be both. Elder, if it's not right, what philosophical basis are you using to make that determination ? It's not Christianity.) Policy makers take your money in the name of Democracy (which is only tyranny by majority if not based on valid principles) in order to justify the argument that it hasn't been "forced" on "the people". In fact, it has indeed been forced on those who oppose it. This process is used by religiously inclined conservatives to impose moral standards on those who oppose those standards and is hijacked by non-religious liberals to take money for things we are opposed to. Their is no objective standard being used to reconcile these differences and so continues the never ending "battle of opinions" between liberals and conservatives. It has progressed to a nightmarish state where a Baptist minister who is vehemently opposed to abortion must make a regular involuntary contribution to the federal partial birth abortion fund. If you think that things can't get worse, ask an older Jew or a Russian. Keep in mind, pre-nazi Germany was an advanced, educated culture and was known as "the land of poets and philosophers". Religion and mystic, subjective philosophy was rampid. One of the ongoing arguments that has been center stage in our culture has been whether or not abortion is proper. The correct argument should be whether or not we should be forced to contribute to things which we are opposed to. As long as our policy makers rely on subjective philosophies as their guide, we will continue down the road to "working for the collective" and all the horrors that go along with that kind of thinking. It is inevitable. A reversal can not occur without a philosophical reversal occuring. Ironically, it appears that religious individuals have been and will continue to lose the most by refusing to reject their own subjective standards in the realm of government policy. It seems that adopting an objective standard based on individual rights as opposed to a subjective standard like Christianity in matters of policy is their only possible real "savior".
  9. Ah, Mr. Farrius you have hit on the root of the issue. "The standard that people can be held accountable to", should be a standard that can be proven to be rational and demonstrable. It should be an objective standard not a religious one.
  10. Elder, are you going to make me engage in a scripture debate ? EEK !! Can we discuss Cat in the Hat instead ? (just kidding) I will oblige you if you insist but surely you can see where an economic system that does not advocate "sharing with your brother" was not born out of Christian doctrine. I have read the new testament cover to cover and I certainly didn't walk away with the impression that serving my own rational self interest on earth was a priority as opposed to "helping my brother" (a philosophy that is more consistent with communism or socialism).
  11. Elder, although I am opposed to religious doctrine as the basis for policy, I am also strongly opposed to an individual being prohibited from holding and expressing personal beliefs. Generally, it is not the individual being sworn in that writes God into the text of a swearing in ceremony. If it were, I would support the gesture. The fact that it is the standard text implies that the individual is expected to be committed to serve a God. Every God that I am aware of is connected to a religious doctrine of some sort. Every religious doctrine that I am aware of is endlessly irrational and contains numerous contradictions that are to be overlooked and accepted on the basis of faith. Will a policy maker, once having made this committment, be inclined to reject an essential endeavor or action simply because it does not appear to coincide with the doctrine associated with the God that the official has sworn to serve ? Will a socialist guilt the official into redistributing the wealth of his constituents to "those in need" as they have been doing for decades due to the fact that such an act is consistent with God's doctrine ? This is what I am opposed to. This is what must end. Conservatives, religious or otherwise must adopt reason as their only guide in matters of policy if they ever intend to fend off socialist agendas and preserve freedom. God in government has done and will continue to do far more harm than good.
  12. Mr Farrius, all men are in fact not created equal but none should be born indebted or to be sacrificed to another. Nobody needed God to establish that concept. The founding fathers had religious upbringings as did most during the period but the truly successful principles that they implemented were not primarily of Christian origin. The founding fathers were also followers or "students" if you will of the philosophy of John Locke which was in line with the philosophy of his predecessor Thomas Aquinas which was in line with the philosophy of his predecessor Aristotle. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not come out of the bible. These concepts are based on individual human rights. These are the things which we require for our existence as human beings. The things which we require for our existence as human beings are governed by our nature. No one needs God to establish a bird's right to fly nor do they need God to establish man's right to pursue the things that man requires to exist. It is self evident. Thus the phrase "We hold these truths to be self evident". God is not and never has been a necessary component in government.
  13. Krusty, "the golden rule" is not a standard that can be objectively defined. It is subjective not objective. It is obviously "interpreted" differently by mormons and sado-masochists. Using an objective standard based on proven, demonstrable principles to govern the lives of human beings rather than conclusively flawed mystic doctrine is essential. This is not an example of my "befuddled" logic. I am well aware of the "purpose" of religion. I am also well aware of the harm in it. I would never advocate the prohibition of it's practice. This would be in conflict with the paramount necessity of the protection of individual rights. However, it should never be used as a basis in legal or economic policy particularly when the doctrine advocates the violation of individual rights and suppresses the conditions that must exist for the progression and prosperity of mankind. The stake is far too great to be left to the "supernatural". Try to find a religious doctrine that has a philosophical basis that is not in stark contrast to the principles of capitalism. You will be looking for a long time. However, the economic system of capitalism is the force that began the industrial revolution and continues to transform the world forever. It is ridiculous to continue to hold with doctrine that is counterproductive to the principles and systems that are directly responsible for our prosperity.
  14. Craig, ancient religious doctrines are worthy of admiration in the sense that they are man's early attempts at crafting philosophies to guide our lives. That is truly an admirable endeavor with totally good intentions but it is blatently flawed and ultimately harmful to those unable to recognize the flaws. You stated that you support religion because it can teach moral and ethical behavior. However, by what standard are these morals and ethics established ? They most often are not established by an objective standard that lends itself to demonstrating the value of the "rules" to the person adopting them. They are generally edicts that exist with little or no logical, reasonable explanation as to their value. This leaves a large portion of mankind with a complete inability to measure the value of the "rules". Thus mankind has been plagued with irreconcileable disagreements that have lead to bloodshed around the world throughout history. It has been a long standing misconception that you can not have a rational standard of morality based entirely on reason and logic. This of course would render ancient religious doctrines obsolete. You can do it and it in fact has already been done. Here is an example and a comparison: If asked why it is wrong to lie, a religious person might be inclined to respond "because God says so". This is in fact very ineffective in teaching morals and ethics and its ineffectiveness is evident all around us. However, if you tell the person that to lie is wrong because it is an intentional attempt to distort the facts of reality and people must rely on their accurate perception of reality for survival, it clearly demonstrates the harm in lying and the value of truth. It bases the value of not distorting the truth on the objective standard of individual rights. All "rules" can be objectively established and proven by this same standard. It is an extension of Aristotelian logic that is as real and demonstrable as the laws that govern science. It is a far cry from "because God says so". It is the answer to the never ending political-religious "My God is better than your God" type disagreements that we find ourselves in even to this day. Look at what type of problems this presents even for our world leaders today. The American President is unable to identify our enemy in the Middle East. He knows, as does everyone, that our enemy is Fundamentalist Islam. You nor I nor the rest of the world will ever hear him make that statement. This is because he is publically of Christian faith and has thus compromised his ability to be forthcoming in identifying the lack of value in the teachings of Fundamentalist Islam. He can not and will not ever publically present the argument "My God is better than your God" and condemn Fundamentalist Islam although it is an absolute certainty he does so in private. He must continue to tiptoe around the matter at hand instead of attacking it's philosphical roots which is absolutely necessary to correct the problem. He can not openly identify the problem and he subsequently will not be able to openly solve the problem. His faith is not judged by an objective standard so he knows he has no right to judge another faith by an objective standard. Quite a problem isn't it ? The real problem is not merely Fundamentalist Islam however, it is subjective, abstract, mystic, supernatural, obsolete, religious doctrines of all faiths all around the world and mankind's failure to reject them and adopt an objective standard of morality that applies to the existence of all human beings in this life here on this earth.
×
×
  • Create New...