Favorite Conspiracy Theories

[keylime]

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.

[Sigi_BC84]

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.

LOL, who cares? This institution is only respected if it is the will of the ones really in power (read the_saint's post above if you haven't yet).

 

--Sigi

 

P.S., regarding "corruption" (from the movie "Syriana"):

 

"Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Brown, thinks he’s

gonna run this up the flag pole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, no-name congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. (mimics prosecutor) “But, Danny, these are sovereign nations.” Sovereign nations! What is a sovereign nation, but a collective of greed run by one individual? “But, Danny, they’re codified by the U.N. charter!” Legitimized gangsterism on a global basis that has no more validity than an agreement between the Crips and the Bloods!

 

(beat) ...Corruption charges. Corruption? Corruption ain’t nothing more than government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That’s Milton Friedman. He got a ***** Nobel prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around here instead of

fighting each other for scraps of meat out in the streets. (beat)

Corruption... is how we win."

[pbleighton]

"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

[pbleighton]

"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

[luke warm]

"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.

whether i do or not isn't the point... can you really not see how illogical it is to use as proof of a position you take something you don't believe to be true?

 

you said, "I am an atheist, and as such know that morality is something that the human race makes up as it goes along." examine that statement for a moment... morality is made up as we go along, and you know this because you are an atheist? that does not follow

 

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.

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... is your "made up" morality somehow better than his?

 

i appreciate your giving me one more chance to argue for a position i did not take... i simple asked, in response to your calling actions morally wrong, "now this i find interesting... are you saying that there is some way to measure morality? is this the 'peter morality' we're speaking of, or is there some more objective type?" ... to which you replied, "It is an opinion."

 

my reply was, "well you did say, "It is morally wrong." ... perhaps that sentiment is merely an opinion, but it's stated as a fact" ... as a matter of fact, just so nobody is misled by your attempt to turn this into something it isn't, this is my quote: "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 "

 

as you can see, i'm not the one who introduced the concept of morality into this discussion, you did when, speaking of the US toppling foreign gov'ts, you said "It is morally wrong"...

 

i objected to your use of the word then, and i do now, on the grounds that your morality is no better than that of the ones you're condemning (in a world of subjective morality)...

 

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.  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. 

you seem confused... i haven't been able to find a post of mine where i stated i believe in objective morality, much less the source of that belief... had i said, in defending a certain act of america, "it was the moral thing to do" then you'd be correct to ask me to defend that... however, i didn't... *you* introduced that concept so *you* are the one who must attempt to explain how you can call anything immoral if morality is subjective (a fact known by you because you're an atheist)

 

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

 

Can you make a logically defensive argument for statements of the kind "The Earth is round?".

probably i could, had i stated it as a fact... if i couldn't, i'd be forced to admit that i erred...

 

Whether an argument is valid or not, and whether a statement is true or not, depends on the frame of reference. This goes for moral statements as well.

here's a moral statement... "the rape and torture of small children is evil" ... assume that morality is subjective... what frame of reference exists that would make that statement any more true than "the rape and torture of small children is not evil?"

 

your flat/round earth argument isn't the same, imo, because you seem to be saying that a person could believe the earth is flat because he refuses to accept evidence (factual evidence) to the contrary... whether or not he accepts such evidence, the earth is either flat or it is round (well, spherical)... so one's frame of reference has nothing to do with the actual truth or error of a position

 

so i'll repeat the question i asked peter, which he must have missed: if morality is subjective, can one person's beliefs be more moral than another's?

[pbleighton]

"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

[han]

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

 

An immoral bunch we non-believers are, we can't even decide whether rape and torture are good or bad. Pray for me Jimmy.

[luke warm]

i'd have expected more from you hannie.. you know that's not even close to what i said

 

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".

what are you talking about? you keep inisisting that i have to defend something... *you* introduced morality into the discussion, not me.. the person making the affirmative statement bears the burden of proof... that's basic, but you're trying to make it appear that i said something i didn't say...

 

i never said that christianity provides a basis for objective morality... you are throwing up a straw man argument... you otoh did say you know morality to be subjective because you're an atheist...

 

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?

whew... i have to hope you're just having a little fun.... the example i used could just as easily have been another (such as your example of slavery)... hitler, stalin, pol pot, history is replete with examples of people whose morality might be different from yours...

 

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

[Codo]

It was said here, that the UN does not work properly, because there are vetos from Russia or China. Of course there are vetos. And these states just serves their own purpose. Of course they do.

 

What does this proof? That the UN is not perfect? Absolutely accepted.

 

Does this give you or your government the right to decide for its own, whether a war is justified or not? No, because your governement will just look for their interests too.

 

The idea behind the UN is, that it MAY work. If you decide yourself, this will mostly fail, because the reasons for any given governement to declarer a war are never because they want to rescue lifes, they are always ohter reasons behind the wars.

So, the right to declare war should be well defined by a majority of the world. And the world did so. Tehy defined the rules for deeclaring war. Unluckily, a lot of guys don`t like to follow rules. Mr Breshnew in Afghanistan, Mr. Hussein in Kuweit.

These guys were evil. Obvious.

 

Unluckily, the president of the US did the same: He started a war and ignored the given rules.

 

If you take this szenario away from the states and put it in your local village, this is, what happened:

You local sheriff believed, that family Hussein is a danger for his community, because they own too many guns.

He went to the court and showed his indications and proofs. The court said: No, this is not enough. So, your sheriff "produced" some proofs. But still, the court was not conviced behind the last concerns.

No problem said the sheriff, I still want to go there.

Mr Hussein said: Please don`t come, but guys from the court may come and look: I do nothing illegal, I have no guns. So, these guys came and found nothing (not much).

Still your sheriff said: I don´t believe in anything but me. Who cares about the court? L´etat, c´est moi...

I will go there.

So, he went to Mr. Husseins house, killed the dogs, imprisoned the family and occupied the house. No guns found.

 

No problem, he destroyed the house and told the court, that they have to pay for the repairs. Luckily, he had his own building business and got most of the rebuilding to do. He earned a lot of money but still complaint, that the court should pay for the destroying of the house.

 

Do you reelect this sheriff?

Do you think, that he has many friends?

Do you like his morality?

 

I don´t.

[pbleighton]

"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

[han]

I'd have expected more from you hannie.. you know that's not even close to what i said

 

Hmm, I've got to reread all your posts then. I thought that this was more or less your message: Without a god, there is no way distinguish good and bad, there is no moral difference between a murderer and, say, me.

 

I'm not a religious person, nor do I have a strong background in philosophy. Perhaps that makes it impossible for me to understand your posts.

[keylime]

I confess: I reread Jimmy's posts. I think I get where he's going towards.

 

If the Bush administration is worse than the UN is, I'll eat my underwear in front of the White House (since I live only 45 miles away from it). Then, to make my point very clear, I'll renounce my citizenship and move to Venezuela to become a worshipper of Chavez's regime.

 

Folks, it's long overdue to call the elephant in the living room. Get the UN out of the US. Just them slighting the Danish people with their discriminatory add about racism three weeks ago warrants the UN being cut off from ALL US subsidy. Coupled with the oil-for-food scandal and the Darfur genocide that is ongoing...yeah, I think the UN deserves to be sunseted exactly the same way the League of Nations did.

 

Oh yeah, while I'm on a roll here - STOP the darn reconquistas too.

[helene_t]

here's a moral statement... "the rape and torture of small children is evil" ... assume that morality is subjective... what frame of reference exists that would make that statement any more true than "the rape and torture of small children is not evil?"

Lets give it a try. The frame of reference could, for example, be

 

1: "It can be mathematically proven that ....."

Does not qualify. But hen again, it never could. Moral judgement is beyond the scopes of mathematics.

 

2: "According to objective moral, ...."

Objective moral does not exist, of course. It occurs to me that you and Peter accuse each other for believing in objective moral, while everybody agress it does not exist.

 

3: "I'm stronger than you so you'd better agree that ...... since otherwise I'd beat you up"

You said (if I understood you correctly) that the only alternative to objective moral is "might makes right", so this seems to be the only frame of reference that remains after we have agreed to trash the objective moral. But as I've said a couple of times, I disagree. I believe that there are more useful alternatives to objective moral than this one.

 

4: "It is Jimmy's opinion that ......"

Much better. Statements made within this frame of reference are useful to those who know you and to those who want to know you better. Besides, since you believe that rape and torture is immoral (I presume), it actually qualifies.

 

5: "According to the vast majority of contemporary Western philosofers, ....."

That's would probably be the most useful frame of reference for a forum like this one. And as for rape and torture, it happens to qualify, I think.

[hrothgar]

If the Bush administration is worse than the UN is, I'll eat my underwear in front of the White House (since I live only 45 miles away from it). Then, to make my point very clear, I'll renounce my citizenship and move to Venezuela to become a worshipper of Chavez's regime.

 

Folks, it's long overdue to call the elephant in the living room. Get the UN out of the US. Just them slighting the Danish people with their discriminatory add about racism three weeks ago warrants the UN being cut off from ALL US subsidy. Coupled with the oil-for-food scandal and the Darfur genocide that is ongoing...yeah, I think the UN deserves to be sunseted exactly the same way the League of Nations did.

 

Oh yeah, while I'm on a roll here - STOP the darn reconquistas too.

Threads like this one are why its so dangerous to allow discussions about religion and politics at the dinner table.

 

Time was, if I had met Keylime at a bridge tournament I might have invited him to grab a beer and discuss a few hands... Those days are long past.

[Al_U_Card]

If the Bush administration is worse than the UN is, I'll eat my underwear in front of the White House (since I live only 45 miles away from it). Then, to make my point very clear, I'll renounce my citizenship and move to Venezuela to become a worshipper of Chavez's regime.

 

Folks, it's long overdue to call the elephant in the living room. Get the UN out of the US. Just them slighting the Danish people with their discriminatory add about racism three weeks ago warrants the UN being cut off from ALL US subsidy. Coupled with the oil-for-food scandal and the Darfur genocide that is ongoing...yeah, I think the UN deserves to be sunseted exactly the same way the League of Nations did.

 

Oh yeah, while I'm on a roll here - STOP the darn reconquistas too.

Threads like this one are why its so dangerous to allow discussions about religion and politics at the dinner table.

 

Time was, if I had met Keylime at a bridge tournament I might have invited him to grab a beer and discuss a few hands... Those days are long past.

Or useful, you mean. If nothing else it has saved you from an unpleasant evening of hand discussion over beer that might have turned philosophical.

[keylime]

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

 

I defended this country, so that I would have the priviledge of doing exactly this. The choice in my eyes is a simple one - do we, as a country, even with our many faults, continue to shine for the billions of the people of this world as a beacon of hope....or do we let ourselves slide into dhimmitude?

[Sigi_BC84]

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

You are sounding more and more deranged. Let me remind you that you jumped at somebody's throat because that person dared to post the sentence "The worst invention is religion". Now you ramble about free speech.

 

Let's talk about double moral standards again.

 

--Sigi

[keylime]

If you think I'm deranged, then why post? Just because I firmly believe in what I choose to believe in, doesn't mandate a stab at my mental state. That's an insult to my character, and the millions of people who like me deal with actual disorders on a daily basis. It's people like you why the stigma of mental illness is so prevalent in many societies. Nice, real nice.

 

Furthermore if you really think I have a double moral standard, read my posts again. I don't think consistency of view is an issue with me.

 

Scary how people can't handle a dissenting view.

[hrothgar]

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

Dwayne:

 

No one is trying to limit your right to speech.

No one is trying to dictate your belief system.

 

I am merely questioning whether it is necessary for individuals to trumpet their political / religious beliefs any chance they get. I don't think that political trolling has a place on this bulletin board. Furthermore, I think that a number of your posts fall within this category.

[keylime]

Richard,

 

And others aren't?

 

We may not agree often, but I still carry a high measure of respect for you, because you aren't shy about saying what's on your mind.

 

I, with as bad as my langauge is, am attempting to do the same.

[Sigi_BC84]

If you think I'm deranged, then why post? Just because I firmly believe in what I choose to believe in, doesn't mandate a stab at my mental state. That's an insult to my character, and the millions of people who like me deal with actual disorders on a daily basis. It's people like you why the stigma of mental illness is so prevalent in many societies. Nice, real nice.

Look, all I've said is that you sound deranged. This was a comment targeted at your "policitical and religious trolling" (as quite nicely put by Richard) in combination with your apparent inability to deal with the fact that some people actually couldn't care less about God (or the US, or Bush, or ...).

 

Furthermore if you really think I have a double moral standard, read my posts again. I don't think consistency of view is an issue with me.

My remark was not about your policital/religious views expressed here but about the double moral standards that you (apparently) apply towards free speech. To put it bluntly: Dwayne may trumpet anything but don't you dare to touch one of his holy cows (no pun about holiness intended). My apologies if I'm wrong here, but this is the impression one gets when reading that posting of yours above.

 

Scary how people can't handle a dissenting view.

It is not your views but your way of expressing them that I find difficult to handle (in case you don't understand what I'm talking about here: you keep making highly controversial statements without backing them with any arguments, apparently for no other reason but aggravating the readers of this thread).

 

--Sigi

[joshs]

Well, I love you all. Now, I must be deranged!

 

I figure that I will not bring up the exciting discovery of the gospel of judas, and instead bring open for debate the proposition that:

"God is not a Red Sox fan".

 

This I am sure will provide a subject where we can find agreement between

 

a. athiests, who happen to be red sox fans, and

b. religious folks who dislike the red sox and

c. Followers of Spinoza who think god went into hybernation after creating the universe and

d. Anyone who thinks Barry Bonds taking steroids is a good thing

[mike777]

We in the know all realize God is a Cubs fan. We have objective proof of this. :)

 

Flying to game on Saturday, will try and bring back proof next week for all. :).

 

Can we get Bill James to bring his stats over from the dark side(Boston) to the side of goodness and light?

[hrothgar]

We may not agree often, but I still carry a high measure of respect for you, because you aren't shy about saying what's on your mind.

 

I, with as bad as my langauge is, am attempting to do the same.

To me there is a fundamental difference between bridge and politics/religion.

 

Bridge is a game. Its a silly little pastime. At the end of the day, none of it actually matters. I have no problem with people making forceful arguments about bridge because no one is really going to take things too seriously. At the end of the day, if I make a stupid bid or butcher yet another defense I'm going to feel a bit foolish but its not going to matter one bit.

 

On the other hand, politics and religion are something that I am deadily serious about.

 

I have walked away from a lucrative consulting deal because of the owner's political affiliation. I refuse to spend money with Walmart and Exxon because of the corporate policies. Its been many a year since I've ordered a pizza from Dominos. I transferred a lot of assets out of Bank of America as a result of some rather lopsided political contributions.

 

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE to argue politics. I have some very strongly held opinions here and many of them are quite controversial. However, in my experience political debates often get emotional. Soon after they get really REALLY ugly.

[luke warm]

"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?

i don't have to.. as i said on two separate occasions (now 3), "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 "

 

as you can see yet again, i don't think morality has any place in a political discussion, though i absolutely agree with your right to introduce it... however, if you do introduce it (and you did), you can't then call on me to defend something i never stated or implied... i simply objected to your use of the word and attempted to find out how you could state it as a fact when your words paint a different picture

 

You are the one who introduced "objective" versus "subjective" morality, a straw man IMO, but obviously important to you.

say huh? do you know what a straw man argument is? i simply asked you a question, which you answered... i never introduced anything of the kind

 

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?

because (as i now state for the 4th time), " ... 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"

 

i did not introduce morality and refuse to defend whatever position you wish to give me simply because you wish to give it... i will defend statements i make, but not statements you want me to make

 

Hmm, I've got to reread all your posts then. I thought that this was more or less your message: Without a god, there is no way distinguish good and bad, there is no moral difference between a murderer and, say, me.

no, that wasn't my message at all (although i can probably make a good case for it)... i had no message, peter did... i objected to his use of the word, that's all...

 

I'm not a religious person, nor do I have a strong background in philosophy. Perhaps that makes it impossible for me to understand your posts.

i don't know many people more intelligent than you, so background or not i doubt you'd have too much trouble with understanding... in a nutshell, here it is:

 

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

 

in an attempt to find out why he thought those acts were immoral, i simply asked upon what he based his views... i asked if he viewed morality as objective or subjective... he stated "subjective"... so naturally it occurred to me (as it will to you) that if morality is indeed subjective, his statement that a thing (any thing) is immoral carries no more weight that the one who states that the same thing is moral.. in an attempt to stem the tide, he tried to get me to defend "objective morality"... i refuse to defend something i never affirmed... he introduced a straw man into the discussion

 

1: "It can be mathematically proven that ....."

Does not qualify. But hen again, it never could. Moral judgement is beyond the scopes of mathematics.

i agree

 

2: "According to objective moral, ...."

Objective moral does not exist, of course. It occurs to me that you and Peter accuse each other for believing in objective moral, while everybody agress it does not exist.

well to state "objective moral[ity] does not exist, of course..." simply begs the question... i haven't accused peter of anything, i haven't had to... he quite plainly stated that "morality is subjective" ... he has tried to accuse me of stating the converse, but i never did so

 

3: "I'm stronger than you so you'd better agree that ...... since otherwise I'd beat you up"

You said (if I understood you correctly) that the only alternative to objective moral is "might makes right", so this seems to be the only frame of reference that remains after we have agreed to trash the objective moral. But as I've said a couple of times, I disagree. I believe that there are more useful alternatives to objective moral than this one.

we didn't exactly agree to trash objective morality :) ... the 'might makes right' argument goes something like this... in a world of subjective morality, the jew thinks it is immoral to gas their race by the millions, while the nazi disagrees... the nazis won that debate by force of arms, thus the morality inherent in their worldview prevailed... other countries, also thinking the gassing of the jews was immoral, put a stop to it... their opinion of morality was upheld by force of arms... BUT, both the gassing and its cessation were moral in any worldview that states morality is subjective...

 

4: "It is Jimmy's opinion that ......"

Much better. Statements made within this frame of reference are useful to those who know you and to those who want to know you better. Besides, since you believe that rape and torture is immoral (I presume), it actually qualifies.

i agree, that's *much* better... however, note that in a world of subjective morality, my morality is still only an "opinion"

 

5: "According to the vast majority of contemporary Western philosofers, ....."

That's would probably be the most useful frame of reference for a forum like this one. And as for rape and torture, it happens to qualify, I think.

yes, that could qualify... but that's basically the 'might makes right' argument in a context where philosophical thought has replaced bullets (imo)

 

However, in my experience political debates often get emotional.

yes they do, and often they get every bit as emotional as religious debates (with the same zeal that's often found in the latter) ... a debate, to be worthy of the word, must follow certain well-established rules of engagement... emotionalism is not one of those rules