pbleighton

1. "i've said countless times that i wasn't discussing morality, i was discussing your use of it as an argument." A distinction without a difference. 2. "that isn't the first time you've used the same fallacious tactic... the giving of money to charities may or may not be moral, but i never said it was nor even hinted at it... i simply stated it as a fact... you are free to draw inferences from things people say, by you aren't free to put words in their mouths or thoughts in their heads... you can't keep insisting something is "clear" to you when the person who uttered the words tells you flat out that you are wrong" YOU can't use words in ways which, in common usage and obvious inference, mean X, and later deny they mean X, and expect not to be called on it. You NEVER hinted that large charitable contributions are moral? IT JUST SO HAPPENED that you made reference to large U.S. charitable donations, right after you said that "all the bash america posts make me sad"? WOW!!! WHAT A COINCIDENCE!!! What was this, a random factoid that just popped into your head? You are hiding behind a decidedly amateurish legalism, and your denial is totally unconvincing, and I AM free to point that out. 3. "for the 3rd time i'll ask: which of these 3 do you disagree with? in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof; peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral; peter bears the burden of proof" I have given what I considered to be an adequate response twice before. I will amplify it a little. Number two doesn't apply to this discussion, therefore number three doesn't follow. Number two doesn't apply because, while I did state that certain acts of the U.S. goverment were immoral, I did not "positively affirm" it, in a legalistic sense. As I have said before: "Most political discussions, even those with little moral content, are rarely provable." The reason that I didn't append this to my original statement is that I was engaged in a political/moral discussion, where most of the posters are making unprovable political/moral statements and implications (and this DEFINITELY includes you in your charity reference, whether or not you want to admit it), and I assumed (obviously incorrectly) that everyone understood the nature of the discussion. You are the ONLY poster who doesn't get this. 4. You should pick up a book on semantics. You are a smart guy, but you would do much better focusing on basic meaning and communication, rather than trying to be a lawyer, or a philosopher-king. 5. This is my final post in this thread. You may have the last word if you wish. Peter

4S. A 2 suited bid won't show the spade suit. I might miss a diamond slam (or maybe a laydown game) this way, but I would much rather try to make 10 tricks than 11. This could easily be wrong, but in competitive auctions I have found that the obvious simple bid is right a lot of the time. I bow to those with super methods :ph34r: Peter

I am actually considerably more hopeful about Iran than about Iraq, though the thought of the ayatollahs with nukes is scary. The Iranian people, particularly the younger generation, are getting mighty sick of theocracy, and dictatorship is an inherently unstable form of government. Peter

"what would you do in iran, claus?" Possibly worth it's own thread! "First, do no harm". I would NOT invade or bomb. Sanctions may be worth a try, but I think we have to face the fact that nuclear weapons will spread. I think that this is the least bad answer. Technology is making the world more dangerous. Preemptive wars don't make it better - see Iraq. Peter

"For sure - nobody will be able to help USA anywhere if they decides to have nothing better to do than starting WWIII in Iran." If we invade Iran, it certainly makes it less likely that other nations will help in Iraq. I think that we need to leave Iraq first, before Iraq gets much help. I'm not saying that's right, but I think that's the way it is. Peter

1. "you keep saying that 'objective morality' is a stance i took" No, this is what I said: "You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me." As my quote of yours demonstrated. 2. "i am entitled clarification of an affirmative statement, and i sought it... " Yes, you did so, and I have no problem with that. You did so, however, by bringing up the concept of "objective morality". I have no problem with that, either. I'm just baffled by your refusal to acknowledge what you did. 3. "the nature of morality? since when did this turn into a debate on the nature of morality?" Since you said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality" and "let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist" and "... one has to either admit that morality is subjective (aceofheart's canabal example) or state why it is objective... if subjective, it's reduced to the level of opinion, and should be stated as such... you notice that peter did not attempt to define morality, or explain why one act is moral while another is immoral.. " Sure sounds to me like you were discussing the nature of morality to me. 4. " show me where i stated the above as a fact... i said i was not *sure* such a thing was possible, not that it wasn't" You said: "you introduced that concept [morality] into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light" "That's an entirely different conversation"? No it's not, unless you believe that morality has no place in political discussions. 5. From your first post in this thread: "all the bash america posts make me sad... the last stats i have (ca 2003) show that the u.s. gave an estimated $241 billion in charity to the rest of the world, which equals about 2.3 percent of u.s. gross domestic product.... check out how much other 'developed' countries give, as a % of gdp... anybody close?" While not using the word "morality", this is clearly a defense of the U.S. on moral grounds. You are defending the U.S. by talking about charitable contributions. This preceded my "It is morally wrong." post. So who introduced morality into the discussion? Well, the people who wrote the posts you reacted to, perhaps, but you were in there, too. After the initial conspiracy stuff, this thread has been mostly about the justifiability (moral or otherwise) of U.S. foreign policy, present and past. And you were part of it, until you decided to parse a simple statement of moral judgment to death. Peter

"objectively? i doubt it" Jimmy, we agree on something :ph34r: Peter

"I think the europeans also here will be able to be helpful to the americans which seems to have messed everything up." I hope so. Also the Muslim nations, etc. Peter

"All these parasitic vipers need to be held to account and that also means that all the pussy-footed liberals need to put up and shut up because difficult questions have to be asked and answered." Would you elaborate? What specifically are you proposing? Or is this a joke? Peter

1. "in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof; peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral; peter bears the burden of proof" I stated that very few moral or political arguments were provable by either side. Do you disagree? 2. You said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality" (Apr 3 2006, 10:39 AM) It was in response to this that I said that I believed that morality was subjective (Apr 3 2006, 11:53 PM). This was the timing. You can look it up. You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me. I stated a moral judgment, which billions of people do every day. This is not the same as getting into the nature of morality, which you did by asking my position, then refusing to reveal your own. 3. You also said, without any stated basis, that morality has no place in political discussions. This is a very unusual view (I know no one, of any political persuasion, who would agree with it). I asked: "Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension? Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage..." You never replied to this. You have been basing your refusal to engage on the nature of morality, a subject you brought up, on: 1) I brought up the concept of subjective vs objective morality. Patently false, see above, and 2) Morality has no place in political discussions. Strange, stated with no basis. Can you at least give an argument in favor of a position so totally at odds with common practice? This is what I meant by the teenager analogy (which I qualified as being weird, and not like your typical posts). I feel that it is incredibly naive for a normally thoughtful adult such as yourself to attempt to dissociate political issues from morality. Peter

"I assume you would agree we should stay if we measure more good than harm by staying or do you argue we should leave no matter what we measure?" I'm not sure how to "measure" the future, but if I thought that the situation would be better (ot at least less bad) if U.S. forces stayed, I would support them staying, even though I initially opposed the war. Is this what you are asking? The reasons that I am sure that we should get out is that: 1. Pubic opinion polls consistently show that a large majority (60-80%, depending on the poll) of Iraqis want us to leave. 2. Our presence exacerbates the sectarian hatreds which are ripping the country apart. 3. We offer nothing except a club for the dominant Shiites to beat the Sunnis with. We broke their social order, and are essentially taking sides in the resulting civil war. Any solution will require a peace be made. Right now, we are infuriating one side and enabling the other to take a hard line. 4. The most important reason is the empirical evidence - the longer we have been there, the worse the violence has gotten. Now, what can be done after our military leaves? The positive part is much tougher. Mike, do you have any suggestions of any type? Peter

This post is not meant to be primarily about the question of whether the U.S. invasion was right or wrong, though I'm sure opinions will be expressed. FWIW, I strong opposed it on both moral and practical grounds. Mainly, though... It's a real mess. Unemployment is over 50%, electricity is scarce, the Sunni insurgency is killing people, the Shiite-dominated government-paid militias are killing even more people, the Kurdish goverment is showing fascist tendencies, the Shiite-dominated de facto government is turning into an irresponsible, corrupt theocracy, a real government hasn't been formed months after the elections, etc., etc. What should the U.S. and the world do about it? The only thing I am sure of is that the U.S. should 1. Get it's troops out within 6 months - we are doing more harm than good, and 2. Instead of halting reconstruction aid, as we have been doing, increase it. After that, it's awfully tough. Ideas? Peter

"a debate, to be worthy of the word, must follow certain well-established rules of engagement... emotionalism is not one of those rules" Whe you introduced the concept of "objective morality" (you did this, not me) into the discussion, and then refused to discuss where you stand on it, then you have violated a well-established rule of engagement, which is: Don't be a chicken in a debate :) "An immoral bunch we non-believers are, we can't even decide whether rape and torture are good or bad. Pray for me Jimmy." Very nice, Hannie :D I think I have figured out what happened to Jimmy's posts in this thread. He found himself in a minority, taking offense at statements made by the majority, particularly my posts (possibly because I am a U.S. citizen, and should not criticize my country in front of foreigners). He can't really engage on the merits of the morality of U.S. foreign policy, because, as he has admitted, he agrees with at least some of the criticism. His patriotism and his morality are in conflict. He has focused on my lack of "objective morality", in order to disqualify my judgment that certain acts of U.S. foreign policy are immoral, a judgment not so incidentally shared by a large majority of the world's population. This argument makes no sense whatsoever to any of the other posters in this thread (as far as I can tell), but he clings to it. It does seem like something you'd expect from a bright teenager who has discovered how to use intellectual-sounding arguments to irritate adults, which is weird because Jimmy is even older than I am, and his posts on bridge are usually pretty good, but no matter. He doesn't really want his argument examined too closely, however, so he refuses to say whether he thinks there is such a thing as "objective morality", and claims victory instead. To use a bridge analogy... He is defending 3NT, holding as his last card the two of spades. The declarer is on lead, having taken eight tricks, and leads the ace of clubs. Jimmy plunks down the two of spades and says..... "You forgot to draw trump!" Peter

"my point is, if morality is subjective, then you cannot say that your morality is any more "right" than theirs... if you can say that, how? it has nothing to do with the act, it concerns your use of the word 'immoral' regarding that act" My point is, can you? You are the one who introduced "objective" versus "subjective" morality, a straw man IMO, but obviously important to you. Is your morality "objective" or "subjective", in your opinion? I answered your direct question on this, haveing no problem with my position. Why are you so reluctant to answer mine? Peter

"as a point of interest though, your statement was fallacious... i'll assume you were just kidding when you said that if i can't explain something then something else doesn't exist.. whether or not i can explain anything in no way proves its opposite" Your statement means that you have refused to provide any counterargument to what seems to me to be a straightforward argument that Christianity (your religion) provides no basis for "objective morality". Do you feel that "objective morality" exists? If not, see below. "you keep missing the point, it seems... IF morality is subjective, something you know to be true because you're an atheist, then my ethics are every bit as moral as yours... you can't point to the person who thinks it's right to rape and torture small children and say those acts are immoral, because maybe that person "made it up" as he went along" Do you feel that you, yourself, can't point to the person who thinks it's right to rape and torture small children and say those acts are immoral, and have a sounder basis than I would in saying the same thing? If not you, then can anyone? If so, why? If not, your arguments have been disingenuous in the extreme, not to mention quite silly. You have dismissed a moral judgment, pointing to my general philosophical position, when in fact you would dismiss that moral judgment, regardless of who said it. Peter

"I'll restate the biggest conspiracy, and it is NOT a theory: The U.N. Hands down, the most corrupt organization on the planet right now." You forget the Bush administration. Peter

"you offer as proof of subjective morality happenings in a book you don't believe to be true performed by a God you don't believe exists... " No I don't, but you do. My argument is that the "objective morality" you profess to believe in is objectively not "objective". This is the fourth time you have refused to confront this issue. I'll give you one more chance. "fwiw, i agree that slavery is immoral... i know it's hard to divorce any one act from the concept of morality, but i'm really not speaking of slavery at all.. i'm speaking of morality.. if it is subjective, there's no such thing as good or evil, right or wrong, moral or immoral... if it's subjective, might makes right... " Since you are a Christian, you believe the source of "objective morality" is God, as revealed in the Bible. How, then, can you explain the Bible's support of slavery? If you can't, then your "objective morality" is in fact subjective. Peter

"1) a certain group once said that slavery was moral 2) that certain group now says that slavery is immoral therefore, morality is subjective" Oh, please. It's not just a "certain group" saying this. The supposed source of "objective morality" for the "certain group" (including of course you) is the Bible, which hasn't changed in 2,000 years, sanctions slavery, which is now recognized as horribly immoral. Therefore the Bible is wrong about a very major moral issue. How then can Christians claim to have an "objective morality", if the source is so flawed? Peter

"as proof of subjective morality, you state "It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible." taking that as a true statement, make your case for subjective morality... read mike's post first" 1. It is a true statement. 2. Mike's post didn't address this argument at all. 3. The argument is so self-evident that your request for a "case" is totally disingenuous, but here it is: slave ownership is universally condemned by Christians and Christianity today. It is condoned in the Bible, Biblical arguments were used to support it for centuries (and those arguments were largely accepted), and now it is wrong. Morality changes, and is therefore subjective. I thought I could squeeze a little bit of intellectual honesty out of you. Well, I've been wrong before, and I will be wrong again. Peter

"let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist" Not at all - it is real, but fluid, and difficult to define. See below. "btw, i know you don't believe in an objective morality (as a christian, i knew it before you said so ), but why don't you?" You should have read my post more carefully, I made it quite clear... "It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible." If morality is "objective", how can this be so? I think that your objection to a political discussion with a moral component in the context of this thread is that you are reluctant to agree with criticisms of your country (even though at some level you agree with them somewhat, as you said), muting moral criticism of policies with talk of political consensus and lawyer-like "your honor, opposing counsel can't PROVE it's immoral". Of course I can't prove it. Most political discussions, even those with little moral content, are rarely provable. This is why the injection of a moral dimension makes you nervous.. "all the bash america posts make me sad..." As you are a Christian (and as an atheist, I knew it before you said so), something in the back of your head must be telling you that Jesus would agree with these criticisms. Peter

"it hardly makes me nervous... but if i could ever get you to say why you use the word 'immoral', i think i'd be able to show that you don't really mean what you say i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality... either that or you base morality on your own opinions, which would, imo, dilute your arguments... but we can never know as long as you refuse to answer the simplest questions on the subject potter stewart indeed" I gave you a straight answer. I will elaborate a bit, if it will help you. I do not believe there is such a thing as "real, objective morality", a witless concept IMO. I am an atheist, and as such know that morality is something that the human race makes up as it goes along. It changes over time - slave ownership was considered proper for millennia - including in the Bible. Morality is not physics. It is not provable. It is changeable. It can and should be debated. That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist, or that it isn't important. Potter Stewart had it right. Peter

As Potter Stewart said of pornography, it is difficult to define, but I know it when I see it... Why does discussing the moral dimension of foreign policy make you so nervous? Peter

"no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light" Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension? Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage...... Peter

"Alternatively, are taking some recreational pharmaceuticals?" Ahh, the good old days.... :) Richard, I like 6D. There are probably people who could bid constructively to 7 with this hand, but I am definitely not one of them. Peter

"which ideology engages in puppetmastery? conservative? liberal? both parties have done things you don't approve of, i'm sure... sure it exists, but contrary to *your* repeated statements, it spans ideological views" I never said that it didn't (to a certain extent) span the political spectrum IN THIS COUNTRY (though there has always been significant dissent, mostly on the left). There may be a consensus regarding a particular issues, or cluster of issues, in a particular country, but that does not make such consensus position non-ideological - it merely says that a substantial majority of people in one particular country during a particular period of time shared a particular ideological position. It seems that you are confusing political consensus with some sort of nonideological "objectivity". What I call imperialism, or puppetmastery, and you call the agressive pursuit of national interest though miltiary and economic force, is an inherently ideological issue. It cannot be otherwise. It is a complex issue with many strrongly held ideas on both sides. "now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality?" I said nothing about measurement. It is an opinion (you have expressed a few of these yourself). It is also shared by a large majority of the world's population, as far as I can tell, if you look at public opinion around the world. "not entitled by whom? i agree that any act by any official should not be allowed *if illegal and judged so by our court system*... so if any of the acts you mentioned fall into that category, you are correct... otherwise what we have here is your opinion that this gov't was not "entitled" to perform certain acts... unless judged against the law (and i'm not saying this isn't the case), your opinion is worth exactly as much as mine - the amount charged by bbo to post it here" Your position appears to boil down to this: if there is a political consensus in a country, then if a government commits acts based on this consensus, then neither the country nor the government can be held morally accountable for these acts, whatever they may be, even if they involve killing large numbers of people in other countries. In other words, the importance the quality of life, security, etc. of American people is so much greater than that of other people, that we should ignore the effect on foreigners in our moral calculus. This, by the way, is a profoundly ideological position. It doesn't take much in the way of historical example to demonstrate how silly this blanket absolution is. Would you like me to do so? BTW, I may be incommunicado for most of next week - I will respond as I can today, then you will have to wait for my delicious morsels of wisdom :) Peter