|
29430. arkymalarky - 1/28/2009 4:00:54 PM I agree with Alistair that t's a false dichotomy. I also don't think Americans should ever react to threats or even American loss of lives (as in Mogadishu). They should act based on the totality of the circumstances.
And I disagree with Alistair about America. We're tired of being hated in the world. More amazing than having elected a black man is having elected a man whose middle name is Hussein who has direct experience through family and residence in the Muslim world. 29431. anomie - 1/28/2009 4:55:58 PM VK, if there is an alliance (of resources too) that includes most of Europe, other African countries, and a substantial part of Asia, I would opt for intervention if such intervention included a plan to rebuild the country in country or at least to prevent political despots returning to power.
As to American casualties, perhaps they would happen anyway if such a lunatic had the means, so the guy must be eventually disposed of one way or another. 29432. anomie - 1/28/2009 5:01:00 PM I would say the POTUS duty trumps the moral obligation to prevent "any" genocide or tragedy. But in the case you cite, yes. But then I don't see it as a question of duty so much as a question of pragmatism. 29433. anomie - 1/28/2009 5:02:49 PM Change above to say "I would not..." 29434. judithathome - 1/28/2009 6:40:51 PM Well, I think what we have here are the producers of the show setting up a scenario to showcase a female POTUS...this show was filmed before the primaries and it may have been an attempt to either support OR contest the idea of a woman re: more emotional POTUS and the problems she faces.
Not to say this isn't an interesting discussion and one that surprises me as growing out of a show that features a kick-ass, take no prisoners leading man....who is not only the star but the executive producer of said show. 29435. anomie - 3/4/2009 11:22:02 PM I watched a show about 'time' on the science channel and felt a bit vindicated for a question I posed to creationists in this thread several years (a decade?) ago. That is, has the future been created yet? In terms of physics it seems we just don't know the answer. According to space-time Einsteinian theory, nothing prevents time from running backward. A new theory that attempts to reconcile the large with quantum smallness by suggesting that time may be granular (as in "plank" size), and is created as a result of moving through the three dimensions of the large universe.
Very interesting... 29436. anomie - 3/4/2009 11:25:46 PM The idea above implies that each plank unit of time is a brand new creation or duplication of everything in the universe. 29437. magoseph - 3/20/2009 3:41:48 PM The Washington Post
Conservatives have argued for decades that the sins most dangerous to our society were rooted in lust when in fact they were rooted in greed.
E.J. Dionne Jr. 29438. alistairconnor - 3/20/2009 4:08:22 PM A teaching moment... 29439. wabbit - 5/23/2009 1:20:57 AM I may well be the only confessed atheist here, but I don't understand this at all. How these so-called Christians can do what they know is wrong, and excuse themselves for such specious reasons, escapes me entirely. Said Rembert G Weakland:We all considered sexual abuse of minors as a moral evil, but had no understanding of its criminal nature. Weakland, who retired in 2002 after it became known that he paid $450,000 in 1998 to a man who had accused him of date rape years earlier, said he initially:Accepted naively the common view that it was not necessary to worry about the effects on the youngsters: either they would not remember or they would ‘grow out of it’. Really? I mean, really really?? Do we honestly need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven or sanctioned forgiveness to keep morality in the front of our brains? It seems the most sanctimonious among us are those who should shoulder the most shame.
Talk about someone born to live down to his name.29440. arkymalarky - 5/23/2009 3:23:28 AM Judith is an athiest, as well, but any belief should find them repugnant and as for Christianity, that and one other sin are what Jesus expressed as it would be better the sinner were dead or never born. So how they could really believe what they said they did and do that is something else. 29441. arkymalarky - 5/23/2009 3:26:29 AM And why that doesn't carry the death penalty or at the very least life without parole is beyond me. 29442. judithathome - 5/23/2009 1:07:47 PM Yes, I'm an atheist but I was a Christian at one time and the thing that got me out of there was the hypocrisy...the church I attened "withdrew" from a woman who fell in love with a man not her husband...after her husband, a deacon, had cheated on her for several years. I was 18 when that happened and decided I didn't want to be part of the church...then a lot of reading and thinking for myself led to me a few years later giving up on the whole fairytale.
Didn't Jesus say "Suffer the little children"? I don't think any translation, no matter how inferior, could make that into "MAKE the little children suffer."
...the common view that it was not necessary to worry about the effects on the youngsters: either they would not remember or they would ‘grow out of it’.
Oh, this made me sick to my stomach and I haven't even had breakfast. So it's okay to rape so long as the victim doesn't recall it or matures enough to understand people have needs? Where is all that bullshit about God Sees Everthing We Do? Right...that's covered by the old canard "Jesus died for our sins and God forgives us all of them if we only believe..."
What total and utter bullshit.
29443. alistairConnor - 5/23/2009 7:18:45 PM I suppose I'm an atheist (but it's a bit like asking a nun her marital status, or an Amazon tribesman his favourite TV show). I don't blame religion, in the present case. What it is : children should not be put into the unsupervised care of an all-male institution of any kind, certainly not an authoritarian one with no checks and balances. I see no point in blaming individuals for very ordinary human weaknesses (well yes, the individuals should be punished, but that's sort of beside the point). Rather, it's the institution that is ineffective at best, perverse and corrupt at worst. I'm not anti-religious in the slightest, still less anti-Catholic, but I believe it's time for the temporal power of the Church to be destroyed. 29444. judithathome - 5/23/2009 7:44:05 PM I see no point in blaming individuals for very ordinary human weaknesses (well yes, the individuals should be punished, but that's sort of beside the point).
Okay, I'll admit I've had a toddy this afternoon but I see no way to understand WTF you mean by this. OF COURSE one can blame individuals for "ordinary human weaknesses" if those include fucking little kids. And also, what do you mean by that parenthetical statement? That these pederasts should be punished for it but can't be blamed for it?
I daresay your remarks would not be the same if your daughters had been accosted by the local priests who had the opinion that it was okay for them to be molested because they'd "get over it."
(And I apologize for that last statement in advance but WTF???? I am astonished by your response!) 29445. arkymalarky - 5/23/2009 8:06:41 PM Such individuals should be put where they can't destroy children's lives, but instead many churches and other institutions create havens and venues for these monsters and it needs to stop. We had a boy in my hometown who murdered his parents and sister and he'd been abused by a Scout master. He should never have been placed in a position where that abuse was possible in the organization's normal functions. 29446. alistairConnor - 5/23/2009 8:28:34 PM these pederasts should be punished for it but can't be blamed for it?
Human nature being what it is, one should never be surprised by base actions. War crimes are committed by ordinary people who don't have a strong moral compass. Sex crimes likewise. Those individuals are not to blame for the war; that doesn't mean they should be let off the hook, but one shouldn't lose sight of the big picture if you're interested in actually solving the problem. The current situation is as if the death-camp guards were tried and punished, but Hitler was left in power.
Trust me, I will not put my children in the power of anyone who would be in a position to abuse them sexually. The problem is that people wrongly confided children to the care of an institution that was not trustworthy. The fact that it's a faith-based institution provides a sort of overarching alibi, they didn't need to be accountable in the past. That just doesn't wash any more. That's why I think the institution should be neutered. Mandatory inspections by public welfare authorities. That sort of thing. 29447. arkymalarky - 5/23/2009 9:06:00 PM Liability of the institutions and those in charge of them for negligence wouldn't hurt either. 29448. judithathome - 5/23/2009 11:00:00 PM Well, Alistair, I wonder if people should be wary of letting their children be put in the charge of the Boy Scouts of America...where the fathers of young boys are usually the troop leaders...or in the schools where, say, the swimming coaches or the sports coaches are routinely put in charge of young people?
Here in my town, a man who was well-respected and in high social circles was found to have been molesting young boys he taught diving to...several men the age of my son recently came forward to testify that this man had been molesting them 35 years ago and that the guy had continued to do so to other boys up until he retired.
Seriously, how does one know whom to entrust their children to when churches, social organisations, and schools have this sort of history? Even relatives have been known to do this...
It seems to me there are very many hazards out there that we might never know about...it's left up to individuals to rely on their own moral compasses and there's simply no way to know if anyone is a safe haven for kids anymore.
29449. anomie - 5/24/2009 12:31:56 AM Atheist here too.
The hypocrisy of religious people would be almost entertaining if it wasn't so cruel and vicious.
|
