Reply With Quote
Really? You can't recognize that I was clearly referring to Winehole? Really?
Were you referring to yourself? If so, your post was quite apropos.
Really? You can't recognize that I was clearly referring to Winehole? Really?
Shouldn't you be off asking perfect strangers if you should cut your kids wang?
I would argue that you are showing some moral relativity yourself thereI don't think the analogy you drew necessarily involves 'morality'though. I don't think it's immoral for a family to bring a whiny kid into a restaurant... it just annoys me.
Certainly, there is a societal morality, just as there is a personal morality we all have.
To me though, even though we MIGHT falter, morality should not change based on whether the criminal is a friend or not, whether the thief is someone you know, or whether the nation invading is yours or another.. IMO, its bad for a parental unit to fail to discipline their child in a manner appropriate for their misbehavings. Unless its my sisters kid, in which case, I'm perfectly willing to give her the benefit of a doubt. Thats the same behavior that is exhibited when people don't care about how the US treats prisoners, but does care how NK does, its just on a tiny scale, versus a HUGE one.
And, as to your last point, I agree. However, I don't expect people to actually behave like that, because while societal morality may say one thing, your personal morality should override it, and you should accept those consequences. For an example, society says its wrong and immoral to have more than one child, and you have to kill any others you may have. I would say you society and protect all my kids, and suffer whatever consequences there are.
How about this, and I think we should reach a consensus here. Societal morals should be fair and applicable without regard to relationships or situation. Personal morality does not necessarily have to follow those rules.
If it wasn't I apologize. Unfortunately tone isn't conveyed well across the internet.
Could you expound upon your point then, since I'm not sure what you really meant then?
Chacun a son gout. There's something to be said for being brief.
I knew what you meant; I just thought it amusing that your post could also be classified as a one-line response that did not say much.
Is this supposed to be a dig? If so, it didn't work very well. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I don't know everything; why not ask others for wisdom/guidance that have already been through what I have?
Lost in the shuffle.Originally Posted by DarrinS
Who are they going to round up first? Teabaggers?
In a way, that's exactly what I mean. The door is open for that, maybe not right now, but in the not-too distant future when administrative detention is considered a normal feature of government, as in Great Britain.
When we let Bush get away with it, we gave the power to Obama too. And also to all of their successors. Was that such a good idea?
Is that not also true of the other wing of the DC party? Bush is elected and suddenly concern is raised about the 43rd Reich or what not.When we let Bush get away with it, we gave the power to Obama too. And also to all of their successors. Was that such a good idea?
Without any doubt. The whining is hysterical.
Widespread.
Nonstop.
24/7
(not laughing)
The fact remains that the President now has quasi-regal discretion to suspend habeas and detain indefinitely. This is a definite novelty in our system, viz., normalizing irregular detention. I wonder if power can long resist the temptations offered by mainstreaming a multi-tiered scheme of justice.
I referenced the harebrained manifestations against 41 not too long ago....
How long until the state classifies anti-state sentiments as 'hate speech'?
Back and forth it goes. We can only trust 'our guy' (ok, or 'our gal') with the power.
The first generation of the anti-NWO cluster was heinous with it's easy reliance on absurdly wrong Nazi and "fascist" equivalences. I feared and mistrusted 41, but I did not hate him passionately.
Whatever historical example one would wish to discuss would be on one side or the other, almost unavoidably so. Somebody's always gonna take the hit. Fair and unfair.
If everyone wasn't so hung up on the aspect of petty faction, maybe we could start to focus on other things. I sure hope we do, starting soon.
The lesson of *you can hope in one hand and in the other...* is...
...first, don't in your own hand.
Some posters skip that step as being optional. Some are driven to it by other insane posters. But at bottom, it's totally discretionary.
I liked that you posted a real question. Doesn't happen often in this forum.
Thanks Snake. And I truly appreciate your, and everyone elses, opinions in that thread.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
