Very poetic, but it doesn't really answer my question. How does your statement that "we do have a basis for determining morality, and that is based on the history of events through the flow of time" reconcile with your other statement that "the only historical aspect of morality is Religious and that was the claim to infallibility"? Talking about judging and cultivating fruits doesn't really answer the question, does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
As for your statement that Sayet's arguments are strawmen, you seem to say that a lot whenever you don't want to answer specific points. You say that it is a strawman, that not everybody believes or follows that particular point of view, and therefore there is no reason to answer the argument. I don't buy it.
Cindy Sheehan, who has become a defacto leader of the modern liberal anti-war movement has made some very unsupportive comments about the troops, at the same time that she has demanded civil rights for Guantanimo detainees. Harry Reid, Jack Murtha, John Kerry, and others have accused the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the guards at Gitmo of horrendous acts... none of which have been proven, by the way... and in the same breath have demanded rights for Gitmo detainees. These are NOT isolated cases by joe schmoe on the street. These are the leaders of Modern Liberalism, and they have made these comments numerous times, not just once. And I won't get into comments made by George Sorros (the main money-man of liberalism today) and Michael Moore (their main cheerleader and PR guy).
I could do the same excersize for every topic and issue. I could point out Planned Parenthood's pro-condom/anti-abstinence stance. I could point to Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's attempts to increase the taxes on oil companies as a PUNITIVE ACTION FOR THEIR BEING SUCCESSFUL (says so right there in their own statements--- they want to tax the oil companies because they are making "too much money"), while at the same time pushing increases in welfare programs. In every issue, I can point out what the leadership is actually saying and promoting to prove that they are deliberately adopting the position that is contrary to historical norms of morality. But I think you get the point. The point is that these are NOT isolated incidents by a bunch of nobodies. These are the official positions of the leaders of liberalism on each of these issues.
So even if there are SOME lierals who do not believe these things, it seems clear to me that the leadership DOES. The strawman lies not in these arguments, but in an attempt to claim that "not everyone believes this stuff". It doesn't matter if everyone believes it, since the LEADERSHIP does.
Therefore, the arguments of Evan Sayet are valid, and attempts to call them "strawmen" are the real strawman of this topic... an attempt to present the oppositions argument in a weak light by claiming that "not everyone believes that".
Elliot
