Originally posted by: soccerballtux
wah.
grow up.
I think my next reply to your next post will also include lots of namecalling and angry swearing because my reply will be so empty of content and value that I won't have anything else to fill it up with. I will say things like "that is the most stupidest stuff I've seen around here in a long time" and "FFS OMFG U R STOOPID LOLlz" and similar things.
sometimes people make posts that aren't even worth giving a serious reply to. You have had multiple such posts this thread.
Sure it is.
per·son·al
?adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or coming as from a particular person; individual; private: a personal opinion.
be·lief
?noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
If Obama, or any other fan of national health care, wants medical care for the uninsured, he's perfectly free, right now, to start a charitable foundation to pay the bills for the uninsured. No laws have to be passed for this to happen.
Why does he have to force this personal belief on others by making it public policy?
It's not an opinion.
Otherwise, then I guess he and everyone else should just force their view of Christianity on everyone. Right?
Here's what I wrote, and what you responded to:
"If it's Obama's personal belief that the US should offer universal health care, should he keep that to himself? "
How is that NOT an OPINION?
o·pin·ion
?noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
You need to put another marriage = 1 man + 1 woman, abortion is murder, america bless god, pray for our troops, jesus fish, local christian radio station, etc sticker on your car... :roll:
I don't know what to say, it seems we're arguing semantics in which case in my opinion is nothing but a red herring. Let's say I do agree that it is an opinion, does that mean I should enforce my opinion that all cars that have "rims' on them look lame?
So whose opinion are you voting for, if not your own? "You thought" something, but who told you that? It's obviously someone else's opinion that you were indoctrinated with at some point.
If I really think that something is wrong, I have an ethical responsibility to ensure that I do what I can to ensure that it becomes part of the law. Otherwise, my position is logically inconsistent because I am allowing ethical relativism to be the rule. This is the reason we as a society have laws governing conduct: rape, murder, theft, embezzlement, et cetera. At some point, most of society agreed that these things were unacceptable behaviors. Their elected officials responded accordingly and outlawed them. If I were to say, "I feel that murder is wrong, but if someone else feels differently, they should be allowed to live according to their own moral code," we have an instant contradiction. The only way to resolve this issue in our social scheme is to rely on the will of the majority to decide when someone's rights should be abridged to protect certain rights of others. I have suggested some models for a logical basis for this decision-making process previously (i.e. the hierarchy of rights - life, liberty, pursuit of happiness), for example. People are free to disagree with this model and vote as they please. For myself, this model is how I make my determinations, but I can't hold others to it because they have their own world views. All I can do, then, is vote according to my own worldview and attempt to persuade others that my view is the best one out there.
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
Yes, I completely agree however lets say murder was on the ballot and you checked yes to keep it illegal. Would you say that's it's your opinion that murder should be illegal? In my opinion that doesn't seem to be correct or quite make sense...
I don't know if you know this but I believe before the Reagen-Era there were many religious groups that purposely stayed out of politics - on purpose. What was their argument?
If I want murder to be legal, then my opinion is (obviously) that murder should be legal. If I want murder to be illegal, then my opinion is that murder should be illegal. Is this a trick question? If I vote for something, obviously it should coincide with my opinion. If it does not, then why would I vote for it?Originally posted by: Tab
Yes, I completely agree however lets say murder was on the ballot and you checked yes to keep it illegal. Would you say that's it's your opinion that murder should be illegal? In my opinion that doesn't seem to be correct or quite make sense...
I don't know, nor do I really care. I feel that religious groups have just as much right as every other group to voice their opinions, just as I am free to adhere to them or disregard them.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
If I want murder to be legal, then my opinion is (obviously) that murder should be legal. If I want murder to be illegal, then my opinion is that murder should be illegal. Is this a trick question? If I vote for something, obviously it should coincide with my opinion. If it does not, then why would I vote for it?Originally posted by: Tab
Yes, I completely agree however lets say murder was on the ballot and you checked yes to keep it illegal. Would you say that's it's your opinion that murder should be illegal? In my opinion that doesn't seem to be correct or quite make sense...
I don't know, nor do I really care. I feel that religious groups have just as much right as every other group to voice their opinions, just as I am free to adhere to them or disregard them.
Murder? Oh, yes it should definitely be illegal... but hey that's just my opinion!
:thumbsup:You don't think it's something more than just an opinion that murder should be illegal? That's what I'm getting at - ex my threads with Mursilis.
As for religious groups not voting prior to Reagen, I am just curious as to what their reasoning was - if I was religious I'd be voting quite differently. This wasn't specifically directed at you, just curious.
I think that some of the Socratic dialogs probably represent the shadow of ancient Greek spirituality better than the surviving mythology does, at least to our understanding. While the mythology can also be interesting spiritually, they are very hard for us to decipher -- they are shadows of shadows, in a spiritual and cultural language far removed from our own.
A recent Royal Ontario Museum article for example solved a mystery regarding the identity of a pair of figures in ancient Indian art and mythology, and the author did so using a specific reference to ancient Greek art and mythology, but didn't identify the deeper link between the two. With all the modern capability at our fingertips, we're still groping in the dark trying to understand the ancient cultures and their art.
The ancient Greek mythology should be understood to be not simply religious, but also expression of that in culture. In that, it is both a seeking for deeper meaning and truth, and expression, celebration, interpretation, and also great misinterpretation in turn.
To disbelieve is easy. To believe in something greater, and to incorporate those beliefs in the framework of our lives is much harder. It's not surprising in this view that some who attempt to do so appear to us as simply stupid or misguided, but to me, that same apparent stupidity is the expression of people trying to live up to a greater truth, and that is culture; something to be understood and celebrated as such.
In a democracy or a republic, the opinion of the people is the ultimate moral compass. If society as a whole decides that it will allow murder, then I can either pack my bags, buy some ammo, or try to change their minds. This is simply by definition - the will of the people dictates the law of the land. The law is the codification of the society's moral standards, as it were.Originally posted by: Tab
Murder? Oh, yes it should definitely be illegal... but hey that's just my opinion!
You don't think it's something more than just an opinion that murder should be illegal? That's what I'm getting at - ex my threads with Mursilis.
My opinion is that right and wrong do exist and are dictated by ethics. Therefore, I vote for those whom I feel will pass laws which criminalize acts which I deem unethical. The problem with (or the best part of) our society and form of government is that it allows the mob rule and moral relativism. In the end, morals are a matter of opinion because not everyone will agree on what is or is not ethical. There are certain things that may be demonstrably unethical using simple logic, but once one ventures into more complex issues, the premises required to discuss right and wrong become more complicated (e.g. my threads on who exactly has a right to life).
edit: In other words, I am completely opposed to moral relativism. You are the one arguing for it. Now that I demonstrated how it can be used to allow murder, suddenly you're against it and you want some form of absolutism back. Welcome to my side of the fence. :thumbsup:
Let's try it like this: You said "But aren't we taught that we should keep our own personal beliefs out when we vote?", a statement which strikes me as absurd, for this simple reason: Aren't political opinions/philosophies basically personal beliefs (as these words are commonly defined, and I've already provided basic dictionary definitions)? You're obviously trying to make some sort of comment about the role of religion in politics, but you're being sloppy with your language.
As for your "rims" example, that's easy. As a libertarian, I'd say you have no right to force any opinion on anyone else on matters that do you no tangible harm. While lame rims may insult your sense of aesthetics, your solution is to look away, and you've been done no tangible harm.
I know it's probably a novel concept to some, but how about putting aside your personal beliefs and voting for the best interests of the country? For example, you may have some notion that stem-cell research (or using in vitro fetuses for research) is somehow "murder." Yet, that research could very well lead to a cure for many horrible diseases. If stem-cell research pops up on the ballot, perhaps you could put down the church voting guide pamphlet down for one moment and realize that perhaps the issue goes beyond your narrow opinion on the subject?
There are so many flaws with that argument that it's hard to know where to start. Still, I'll try.
First, you're assuming ("put down the church voting guide"?) that anyone granting 'humanity' to fetuses is doing so for purely religious reasons. There's a group (Atheists for Life) that might beg to differ. You many not agree with the secular reasoning behind concluding that abortion is akin to murder and stem cell research is a moral wrong, but you can't honestly pretend such reasoning doesn't in fact exist, and has a secular, not religious, basis.
Secondly, if you'll concede that someone can have a secular (based in science, not religion) basis for wanting to protect fetuses as fellow humans, then it seems fairly logical that such people might conclude the state has an interest in protecting fetuses as well, because no one questions the state's right to create a broad criminal code regulating conduct affecting others. If the state can outlaw child abuse in order to protect the child, and if one accepts that a fetus has rights akin to a child (you apparently disagree with this part of the premise), it's logical to assume that the state may protect a fetus as well.
This brings us to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable to ask pro-lifers to vote FOR stem-cell research. Would you expect abolitionists to "put aside your personal beliefs and voting for the best interests of the country" by supporting slavery? Of course not. To some, destroying the lives of others for a purpose even as beneficial as medical research is not justified, as the ends do not justify the means to them, and are NOT in the "best interests of the country". You merely assume that your point of view on what's in the country's best interests is the only one that's "right", and then you accuse others of having a "narrow opinion". Amusing use of irony you've got there.
Perhaps it was a bad example.
My point was that there are often larger, more important issues beyond the "hot button" issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum like abortion and gay marriage. Unfortunately, voters are led around by the nose based on these narrow issues and consequently the good of the country is often a distant second. Witness the 2000 and 2004 elections as just two examples, wherein Republican strategy seemed to congeal around the idea of throwing these narrow issues on ballots in as many states as they could.
And in hindsight, despite all of the fervor on the right over gay marriage and abortion, neither were outlawed by the party they voted into office, nor have any laws changed substantively.
My point was that there are often larger, more important issues beyond the "hot button" issues on both sides of the ideological spectrum like abortion and gay marriage. Unfortunately, voters are led around by the nose based on these narrow issues and consequently the good of the country is often a distant second. Witness the 2000 and 2004 elections as just two examples, wherein Republican strategy seemed to congeal around the idea of throwing these narrow issues on ballots in as many states as they could.
And in hindsight, despite all of the fervor on the right over gay marriage and abortion, neither were outlawed by the party they voted into office, nor have any laws changed substantively.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that what you consider "more important issues" are only more important in your opinion. Similarly, what is "good for the nation" is completely subjective. I'm almost appalled that I have to point this out, but there it is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter