It isn't a definition of morality. And that ain't liberal thinking. Morality and human rights are not synonymous terms. Both are in the fruit basket, but one's an apple and one's an orange.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
It isn't a definition of morality. And that ain't liberal thinking. Morality and human rights are not synonymous terms. Both are in the fruit basket, but one's an apple and one's an orange.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.
You are confused. That's not part of this discussion. Morality is NOT the same as human rights. The two terms are not synonymous.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Now you're ducking TWO questions. I frequently think that "Evasion" must be your middle name.Quote:
Morality is NOT the same as human rights.
No, YOU are the stubborn one who refuses to admit that morality and human rights are two different animals. Do you own a dictionary?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little.
Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.
I made a statement you disagreed with. The burden is on you now.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Guess I'll send you a dictionary for your birthday?
Miss Evasion, I'll post the two questions yet again. Perhaps you will find it helpful. You just saying that we should accept it because you say so just won't do. Sorry. Apply yourself a little. Are all liberals as afraid to answer questions as you are? So fearful. So hesitant. So devoid of answers.
Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.
It's what I like about Tal. I don't usually agree with him, but he will generally answer questions UNLIKE YOU.
Mr. Evasion, I'm waiting.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thank you so much!!
I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.
I'll parrot that back to you -- I guess I'll just have to wait. Honestly, your utter lack of seriousness bothers me, and I frequently think that being bothersome is your primary goal in all of this. Too bad. You could think if you'd try it. I think you don't out of fear of where it will take you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That made me laugh. I hope you know why. Parroting seems to be what you are good at! You do at least amuse me.Quote:
I'll parrot that
Probably a vain hope, but just in case.
Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.
You, dear sir, are a master of deflection -- almost as good as Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have yet to hear your explanation of how morality is the same as human rights.Quote:
Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
Here's a question for you, why am I obligated to feel as you do about anything because you think you are right? Haven't you ever noticed morality changes as does the laws around them. You seem to be stuck in your own ideas of morality, and there is no room for any other ideas. It's small wonder that when you disagree with someone you think they haven't answered the way you think they should.
Hey we all have those character flaws that keep us from being perfect. You're no different even assigning labels to people which is a form of name calling though it's okay when you do it. If you think it's true fine, if not that's okay too, but no matter what you think don't expect people to bend to your way of thinking and that doesn't make them wrong either.
It's okay to believe sticking your head up the dufus's arse shoulder deep is the right and moral thing to do, but rather foolish to expect me or anyone else to do it too.
Since I haven't said that, then I don't need to explain it. You must learn to read more carefully. MUCH more carefully.Quote:
I have yet to hear your explanation of how morality is the same as human rights.
You're not.Quote:
Here's a question for you, why am I obligated to feel as you do about anything because you think you are right?
Personal morality changes with the winds. The higher standard of morality that Jefferson appealed to does not change. That's why the rights he referred to are "inalienable".Quote:
Haven't you ever noticed morality changes as does the laws around them.
You see, WG, how easy it is to simply answer questions? Try parroting me on this one.
A completely stupid and moronic thing to say. It's about what I'd expect from an ignorant fifth grader. I have to think you can express yourself better than that.Quote:
It's okay to believe sticking your head up the dufus's arse shoulder deep is the right and moral thing to do, but rather foolish to expect me or anyone else to do it too.
Always the putdown that you think strengthens your comment. (It doesn't.)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Quote:
Personal morality changes with the winds. The higher standard of morality that Jefferson appealed to does not change. That's why the rights he referred to are "inalienable".
You see, WG, how easy it is to simply answer questions? Try parroting me on this one.
Jefferson wasn't talking about morality; he was talking about human rights. (Hmm, haven't I posted that already? Sounds familiar....)
You want me to explain something I've never said. You are putting yourself down when you do that. Don't blame me for it.Quote:
Always the putdown that you think strengthens your comment. (It doesn't.)
That's fine as long as you can explain how you can have human rights without moral standards. You plainly can't, so the discussion is over.Quote:
Jefferson wasn't talking about morality; he was talking about human rights. (Hmm, haven't I posted that already? Sounds familiar....)
You equated morality with civil rights. They aren't even close to being the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
That isn't the question! You can't explain the difference, so you cut and run. You conservatives!Quote:
That's fine as long as you can explain how you can have human rights without moral standards. You plainly can't, so the discussion is over.
No, I didn't. Once again you debase yourself. How much shame can you handle?Quote:
You equated morality with civil rights.
Whatever. Suit yourself. We can have human rights without moral standards. Congratulations on likely being the only person on the planet to believe such a ridiculous idea. I'll stick with Jefferson.
Hilarious, the guy with his head shoulder deep up the dufus arse is lecturing people on morality! Only in America, is crap in your ears a status symbol.
Oh good grief. Try coming up with something intelligent to say.Quote:
Hilarious, the guy with his head shoulder deep up the dufus arse is lecturing people on morality! Only in America, is crap in your ears a status symbol.
You first! Let me know when that happens. I thought I was use to your inane circular arguments but man you really found a new place to bury your head today.
Name one. I know you can't. You know you can't. Now everyone knows you can't. That's why you get offensive. You can't think of anything meaningful to say.Quote:
inane circular arguments
Enough of this. This is too close to being hateful. I'm out.
Good, go get some sunshine and fresh air and learn some manners.
Like this?Quote:
learn some manners.
Quote:
Don't forget to clean the crap from your ears from being shoulder deep up the dufus arse.
Insulting people for their views often elicits an equal if not more potent reaction.
I just noticed an insult to me by JL and I haven't even been here. He projects onto others what he himself is guilty of. Trump does that all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Anytime you're ready. Remember these? It's like I said several days ago, your problem is that there are people on this board who remember what you have said, and who also remember what you have refused to do.
1. How is it that nearly every translation does not accept your definition of aionios?
2. Would you agree that, even based upon your rendering of the Mt. 25 passage, that there is a hell and people will be sent there at least for some period of time?
3. What was your view of these scriptures? Matt. 13:50; 10:28; 18:8,9; Luke 3:17; 12:5; 13:27,28; 17:19ff. You can also refer to Rev. 20:11ff; 21:8, 2 Thes. 1:9, Mark 9:43, Jude 1:7, and 2 Peter 3ff.
4. Based upon what Strong's concordance had to say about "kolasis", do you think you missed it with your interpretation of the word?
Honestly guys, I like discussions. However, trying to have a serious discussion with people who won't answer honest questions simply because they know it will take them to an uncomfortable place, who treat serious serious issues as though they are merely trivial, "gotcha" questions, or who become so angry as to suggest someone has their head up someone else's rear end has become really tiresome. I have little patience with it, and then I allow myself to make unkind comments I'm not accustomed to making, and I feel convicted of God for doing so. Now that's on me, but continuing to pursue this is on me as well, and I'm really not ready to continue that for the reasons mentioned earlier. If anyone (other than Tom who makes good posts) becomes ready to get serious, I might take another stab at it. For now, not so much.
1. You don't answer honest questions (or stay on topic -- deflect, deflect, deflect!!!);Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
2. You treat serious questions as trivial;
3. You blame and refuse to take any responsibility.
Yet I've found you to be an interesting person with a multiplicity of interests and at times worthy of engagement.
I have never posted to you out of anger, maybe it seems that way, but rather matching your rudeness with my own since the semblence of serious discussion was gone, and you became a insulting dictator of thought. I tried through several posts to point that out NICELY, but you ignored or dismissed it continuously. Why assume anyone is afraid of answering because they are not comfortable with their answers? I find that they are more wary of getting blasted as being wrong, which has been your pattern when faced with honest disagreement. Does a serious discussion have to be THAT serious? Or maybe your venting your cabin fever?
Anytime you're ready. About the fifth time I've posted these, and I'm quite certain it will be the fifth time you have refused to answer.
Perhaps you can explain to us how to separate human rights from morality, and how there is no "rightness" or "wrongness" when it comes to human rights.
While you're at it, I'd still love for you to explain how it is that if killing a child is morally wrong, that killing an unborn child could be less morally wrong.
1. You have yet to define each (morality and human rights). They are not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
2. First, please tell me why it's okay to kill children after they're born, especially brown and black children.
OK. I'll take one more stab at it. I will answer your two questions first if you will PROMISE to immediately answer mine. Deal?
Funny you bring that up about Jefferson a slave owner who preached inalienable rights and practiced slavery. So much for a higher standard, individual rights, and all that so called morality. Where they LIARS? Or were they hypocrites? Or were they disobeying the God they claimed so great?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Or were they just doing what humans do and still do, practicing a double standard to justify their high moral standards that only applied to some and not others. Yes that double standard that allows for the high and mighty to discriminate and treat other humans unequally. So I guess morality and human rights is in the eye of the beholder ultimately, the strong subjugating the weak. How else to you put Jefferson on such a pedestal, when his words, and actions didn't match?
Such humans that talk God and do the devil are prevalent throughout history which makes your question more of who can make and enforce the law is who decides morality and human rights. Just ask Adolph Hitler.
a sense of destiny and what ought to be, nothing more, much mia culpa and hand wringing, but yet one man is powerless to overturn the establishment. That persists to the present day
Sometimes the best you get is a compromise between two opposing groups. Somebody still gets the short stick when self interest is involved. Especially when one justifies ones superiority by pointing to another's inferiority.
Yes compromise, sometimes also known as consensus. I would have thought that in times of crisis all things become possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Even in times of crisis, agendas make compromise difficult, but that's the price you pay for diverse populations. The balance of power has been tilted, and when things are unequal it gives slight advantages in those compromises to those it tilts toward. The virus though in this current crisis have certainly motivated states to act in unison though, and that's not a bad thing in absence of an fed response. The communications and consensus formed by those frontline governors is refreshing and they seem to have gotten a regional unified front to deal with the crisis.
There is no quick fix or miracle cure apparent, but a lot of hard work on the ground being done.
So perhaps your union is acting as it should, with states taking the lead according to their need, and the federal government becomes lender of the last resort
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:49 PM. |