Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "Wounded Warrior" Movement

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 12:11:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lately we've been hearing quite a lot about "wounded warriors" and the importance of giving them plenty of recognition for their sacrifices. Apparently there's something called the Wounded Warrior Project that's working to promote the honoring of veterans in general and veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan in particular. Well, I'm afraid that I have to be a bit of a Grinch here and say that this is a very wrongheaded movement.

Showing support for and showering praise upon veterans of wars whose noble purpose was a flimsy sham, wars that were really and truly fought to profit the business and political Establishment of the First World at the estimated cost of 1,421,933 human lives, inadvertently validating such mass death-dealing by high-fiving and benefacting the military personnel that took part in it is a very bad and morally insupportable idea.

Why, what's so wrong with letting veterans know that their bravery and self-sacrifice is valued? Merely this, that their bravery and self-sacrifice was all for a bad cause, for the cause of consolidating our ruling class' hegemony over Middle East oil, for the cause of practicing the "shock doctrine" and raping the economy of Iraq, and for the cause of the agenda of the neocons who surrounded Bush.

The war was fought for morally reprehensible causes and cause does count, ethically speaking. If two people engage in a fight one-on-one and one of them is a good Samaritan fighting to protect a child who was about to be attacked by a predator, well then said good Samaritan who fought for the noble cause of rescuing a child from a pedophile is a hero precisely because his cause was noble. But if it turns out that the good Samaritan was himself a violent mugger who had attacked the pedophile for his wallet and it was just a freak coincidence that he prevented a child abduction, well then he's no longer quite the shinning hero is he! Likewise, attacking Iraq for the selfish reasons of the corporate elite resulted in getting rid of ole evil Saddam, a good thing certainly, but the real motivation was corporate special interests. Therefore the war was not noble, and its participants not quite so deserving of our homage.

What's more, making a big to-do of congratulating and glorifying the troops only plays into the myth that the military is there for the defense of the nation, that when it's used there's always a legit and laudable reason. This is of course the myth that generation after generation continues to bamboozle young people into thinking that joining up and going off to fight and die in the wars of big business and big government is a worthy thing. Endorsing and perpetuating this patriotic myth by paying excessive tribute to the current crop of veterans of foreign wars will only contribute to getting the youth of tomorrow to sacrifice their lives and limbs for the rich & powerful.

And of course an emphasis on venerating veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan also sends the wrong message to the powers that be. It tells them that the patriotic masses are more interested in doing the conventional thing and rendering honor to military personnel than in saving lives by radically preventing war. It tells our rulers in Washington and on Wall Street that all they have to do is wrap their selfish political and economic motives for using the military in the flag and intone the mantra of "support the troops" and the public will by and large go along with the program. It tells the corrupt folks at the top of the power structure that they can easily use our sense of loyalty and love of our national tribe's warriors to play us and defuse popular opposition to the way they exploit the military as their own private gunmen.

And if we do send this message to our leaders, if we do continue to fall for their propaganda, if we do look away from the truth so as to look up to our veterans, then we make ourselves complicit in the evil of wars fought to increase the wealth and enhance the power of the elite. We become a part of the problem rather than the solution. We become a party to the lies and the greed and the crimes against the innocent that our leaders perpetrate.

Sure, on a human level it would be nice to show compassion to wounded veterans, the same compassion that should be shown to any human being who's injured and suffering. Yes, we absolutely should treat veterans decently, but only as a matter of being humane, not, I repeat not as a matter of showing favor to them for their involvement in this country's unjust wars. We must make it explicitly clear that we do not condone their wrong moral choice to go to war for Dubya's and Halliburton's vision of the prosperity to be gained from bloodshed. We should reach out to veterans human-to-human, not as veterans per se, not as "wounded warriors", and not with a lot of vapid rhetorical hype about their "service" to the country attached.

It would definitely be a wrong move to revile veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, to shout "Baby killer!" at them à la anti-war protestors of the Vietnam era. That would only backfire, the country is still overcompensating for the unkind way that many Vietnam vets were treated, in fact much of our current pro-veterans ethos is just collective cultural overcompensation. It would be a counterproductive mistake indeed to add to our lingering guilt about rejecting Vietnam vets by being harsh on the troops who've spilt blood in recent invasions and occupations. We should instead be sensitive and extend a helping hand, but never to give them a pat on the back.

If we hope to ever discourage and stop wars we need to start getting real with the people who fight them about the true nature of their "service". And if we're going to get military personnel and the rest of society to listen we need to be diplomatic not severe. We need to be critical while at the same time being compassionate. We need to take a strong stance against war, and withhold praise from veterans, but never lose sight of the values of empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness that we profess.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/7/2010 6:01:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
but never lose sight of the values of empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness that we profess.
Who is we?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 12:59:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/7/2010 6:01:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but never lose sight of the values of empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness that we profess.
Who is we?

Everyone who is against unjust wars to profit the economic and political elite, everyone who values compassion, everyone who isn't a pro-military and pro-corporate conservative. I was trying to be generously inclusive here and speak as though everyone falls into the category of being decently and progressively anti-war, but since you've called me on this I'm forced to distinguish, sorry to all of you conservatives out there. Yes, alas, not everyone's socio-political ideology or personal value system includes empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness, I was tacitly referring to anyone whose philosophy and value system does.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 1:05:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A Footnote to Plug Up a Hole in a Line of Reasoning in my Thread

Regarding the mugger/accidental hero analogy in the above thread, I'm sure that some of you may be thinking that you've spotted a gaping flaw in it. I.e., that a mugger who inadvertently thwarts a child abduction is acting on a bad intention and therefore his action is a bad action, but a soldier who believes that he's serving & protecting his country is acting on a good intention and that's what makes his participation in an unjust war a noble thing.

But hold your horses there, not so fast. When a soldier goes to war he signs on the intentions of his leaders. Regardless of his personal sense of mission he does the bidding of his society's ruling class, and if the intentions and reasons for going to war of the ruling class are morally bad then taking part in their war is a bad action.

At any rate, a naïve young soldier who really thinks that he's doing something patriotic and respectable either should know better, or he does in his heart of hearts know better but chooses to ship out and make war anyway. In either case there's no moral excuse for his participation in an immoral war. Also, the mugger/accidental hero analogy was meant to apply more to the ruling class that decides when we go to war than to the pawns in uniform who fight their profit-motivated battles.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 1:34:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 12:59:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/7/2010 6:01:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but never lose sight of the values of empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness that we profess.
Who is we?

Everyone who is against unjust wars to profit the economic and political elite
In that case you are incorrect. Neither empathy nor forgiveness nor gentleness is needed to oppose an initial war of plunder.
Of course, there are more sorts of wars out there :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 5:17:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 1:34:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2010 12:59:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/7/2010 6:01:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but never lose sight of the values of empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness that we profess.
Who is we?

Everyone who is against unjust wars to profit the economic and political elite
In that case you are incorrect. Neither empathy nor forgiveness nor gentleness is needed to oppose an initial war of plunder.
Of course, there are more sorts of wars out there :P.

Empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness sure do help steer people in the direction of making the right moral choices about war. I suppose someone with no such feelings might find coldly logical reasons to oppose war, à la Mr. Spock's people on Star Trek, but being a decent human being means really feeling certain moral sentiments, not just taking ethical stances by making matter-of-fact intellectual choices.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
JimProfit
Posts: 63
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 5:22:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
charleslb, I think you disageree with me war is good, but I'm sure even you would back me up that it's wrong that we the people have to flip the bill to meet the needs of dying soldiers.

It's pretty f*cked up that people go and die for this country, and they might have to pay for their own insurance, they don't get housing, psychological and physical therapy, they don't get sh*t. It's wrong. It's not wrong because of some overly romantic fictional view of the troops are superheroes, it's wrong because these people are bleeding and getting shot at for nothing. For a false view of America, and a false view of their commanders. I would not be able to sleep at night knowing people put their faith in me, and I leave them to re-learn to walk, eat, and adapt back into everyday living without any sortof financial aid. We recently had to vote just to give them some damn tax cuts on property!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 6:48:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But being a decent human being means really feeling certain moral sentiments, not just taking ethical stances by making matter-of-fact intellectual choices.
This is either tautological or unjustified, depending on what you mean by decent. If it's tautological I don't give a **** about decency. And "Sentiments" are not "moral" unless they have been altered by intellectual choices, by default they result from evolution, which is nonteleological.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 6:58:10 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 5:17:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2010 1:34:38 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 11/9/2010 12:59:55 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/7/2010 6:01:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
but never lose sight of the values of empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness that we profess.
Who is we?

Everyone who is against unjust wars to profit the economic and political elite
In that case you are incorrect. Neither empathy nor forgiveness nor gentleness is needed to oppose an initial war of plunder.
Of course, there are more sorts of wars out there :P.

Empathy, forgiveness, and gentleness sure do help steer people in the direction of making the right moral choices about war. I suppose someone with no such feelings might find coldly logical reasons to oppose war, à la Mr. Spock's people on Star Trek, but being a decent human being means really feeling certain moral sentiments, not just taking ethical stances by making matter-of-fact intellectual choices.

ROFL I love these posts.... Ah, for it to be as simple as some being Spock and others 'human'... But back to reality.

Empathy, forgiveness and gentleness are not requirements for any human. These are simply traits that YOU admire in a person. And while that's fine, you have to remember: opinion =/= fact

Being a 'decent' human being is believing in moral sentiments? Sir, how does that particular delusion make you decent? Please, show me the error in my nihilistic ways that condemn me to being indecent. I see no reason to consult anything other than what you deem to be "coldly logical reasons". I mean, at least I have logic on my side...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 8:58:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 6:58:10 PM, annhasle wrote:

Being a 'decent' human being is believing in moral sentiments? Sir, how does that particular delusion make you decent? Please, show me the error in my nihilistic ways that condemn me to being indecent. I see no reason to consult anything other than what you deem to be "coldly logical reasons". I mean, at least I have logic on my side...

Logic dictates that you behave like a decent member of society as long as it serves your interests to do so. When circumstances arise in which it can profit you to break from your usual practice of being a "good citizen", with no adverse personal consequences, then there's nothing to prevail upon you to remain a decent human being except decent-making sentiments such as empathy and compassion.

And just to be provocative, Mother Teresa had moral sentiments, and Ted Bundy did not. I think this highlights that moral sentiments can make a major difference in our character and behavior. You can poke all sorts of holes in reasoning to the conclusion that ethical sensibilities are necessary to make human beings good from a single example like this, but it does point up a fact that criminal profilers are quite familiar with, that folks without empathy are far more likely to do very wicked things to other people. The development of a capacity for empathy seems to make an enormous difference in the moral formation of our personalities. Empathy and other moral feelings to seem to be highly critical to good moral character.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 9:03:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The last sentence of my above reply contains a slight typo, it should read: Empathy and other moral feelings do seem to be highly critical to good moral character.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 10:27:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:58:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
Logic dictates that you behave like a decent member of society as long as it serves your interests to do so. When circumstances arise in which it can profit you to break from your usual practice of being a "good citizen", with no adverse personal consequences, then there's nothing to prevail upon you to remain a decent human being except decent-making sentiments such as empathy and compassion.

And just to be provocative, Mother Teresa had moral sentiments, and Ted Bundy did not. I think this highlights that moral sentiments can make a major difference in our character and behavior.
One only killed a few people directly, the other encouraged countless thousands to throw their lives away to invisible sky wizards.

You need a goddamn definition of all your goddamn terms before you say these goddamn things. Goddamn.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:07:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I actually agree with OP. So much so that its scary...
Also they aren't getting "shot at for no reason" their getting shot at BECAUSE they chose to go overseas, and try and kill as many people as possible, they even rape, hell forget rape, they terrorize innocent citizens and opposing forces, its really no wonder they shoot back.
http://mindprod.com...
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:26:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 8:58:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2010 6:58:10 PM, annhasle wrote:

Being a 'decent' human being is believing in moral sentiments? Sir, how does that particular delusion make you decent? Please, show me the error in my nihilistic ways that condemn me to being indecent. I see no reason to consult anything other than what you deem to be "coldly logical reasons". I mean, at least I have logic on my side...

Logic dictates that you behave like a decent member of society as long as it serves your interests to do so. When circumstances arise in which it can profit you to break from your usual practice of being a "good citizen", with no adverse personal consequences, then there's nothing to prevail upon you to remain a decent human being except decent-making sentiments such as empathy and compassion.

Ah, so this all comes down to your definition and belief of what 'good' is. Guess what? I don't believe there to be a 'good' or 'bad'... well, not in the way you are describing it to be. Now, your last sentence is such crap I don't know where to begin... If there's no adverse consequences and profit, why the hell would I remain what you deem to be a "good citizen"? That's illogical - I want what is advantageous for me which happens to be profit. Get it? Fail.

And just to be provocative, Mother Teresa had moral sentiments, and Ted Bundy did not. I think this highlights that moral sentiments can make a major difference in our character and behavior.

No, you didn't prove anything. It's as logically sound as saying Mother Teresa was good because she was black. But Ted Bundy was bad because he was white. Moral sentiments do not ensure moral actions anymore than me liking ice cream ensures me to buy ice cream tomorrow.

You can poke all sorts of holes in reasoning to the conclusion that ethical sensibilities are necessary to make human beings good from a single example like this, but it does point up a fact that criminal profilers are quite familiar with, that folks without empathy are far more likely to do very wicked things to other people.

You really think that empathy is the deciding factor here? Not rage, disdain for human existence, hatred, fear, etc. Look, empathy does not ensure a citizen to be good. They could be able to experience the happiness or sadness of another sentient being, but just not give a flying fvck. You do know that many get a satisfaction out of experiencing their victim's sadness or fear when they're about to strike, since that just adds more to kill.... It makes them feel... alive.

The development of a capacity for empathy seems to make an enormous difference in the moral formation of our personalities. Empathy and other moral feelings to seem to be highly critical to good moral character.

Pfft, a "good moral character"... Define good. Define moral character. And what are the other "moral feelings"? Love or lust? Happiness or sorrow? Confidence or fear? You need to define your terms instead of speaking, in what you think is eloquence, but really is just thick level of BS spread over a very weak case of "It's good because it makes you feel good".
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:39:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 11:26:18 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:58:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2010 6:58:10 PM, annhasle wrote:

Being a 'decent' human being is believing in moral sentiments? Sir, how does that particular delusion make you decent? Please, show me the error in my nihilistic ways that condemn me to being indecent. I see no reason to consult anything other than what you deem to be "coldly logical reasons". I mean, at least I have logic on my side...

Logic dictates that you behave like a decent member of society as long as it serves your interests to do so. When circumstances arise in which it can profit you to break from your usual practice of being a "good citizen", with no adverse personal consequences, then there's nothing to prevail upon you to remain a decent human being except decent-making sentiments such as empathy and compassion.

Ah, so this all comes down to your definition and belief of what 'good' is. Guess what? I don't believe there to be a 'good' or 'bad'... well, not in the way you are describing it to be. Now, your last sentence is such crap I don't know where to begin... If there's no adverse consequences and profit, why the hell would I remain what you deem to be a "good citizen"? That's illogical - I want what is advantageous for me which happens to be profit. Get it? Fail.

D@mn, girl! You're one baaaaaad b*tch.

And just to be provocative, Mother Teresa had moral sentiments, and Ted Bundy did not. I think this highlights that moral sentiments can make a major difference in our character and behavior.

No, you didn't prove anything. It's as logically sound as saying Mother Teresa was good because she was black.

True.

But Ted Bundy was bad because he was white.

True.

Moral sentiments do not ensure moral actions anymore than me liking ice cream ensures me to buy ice cream tomorrow.

I feel that your statement is somehow incorrect. I can't tell you exactly why, but my gut is telling me that you're wrong.

You can poke all sorts of holes in reasoning to the conclusion that ethical sensibilities are necessary to make human beings good from a single example like this, but it does point up a fact that criminal profilers are quite familiar with, that folks without empathy are far more likely to do very wicked things to other people.

You really think that empathy is the deciding factor here? Not rage, disdain for human existence, hatred, fear, etc. Look, empathy does not ensure a citizen to be good. They could be able to experience the happiness or sadness of another sentient being, but just not give a flying fvck. You do know that many get a satisfaction out of experiencing their victim's sadness or fear when they're about to strike, since that just adds more to kill.... It makes them feel... alive.

Ironic, since it makes the victim feel... dead.

The development of a capacity for empathy seems to make an enormous difference in the moral formation of our personalities. Empathy and other moral feelings to seem to be highly critical to good moral character.

Pfft, a "good moral character"... Define good.

Not bad.

Define moral character.

According to the previously-defined moral paradigm, anyone who is black.

And what are the other "moral feelings"? Love or lust?

I love lust.

Happiness or sorrow?

Happiness that my lust will be fulfilled, sorrow that I have a refractory period.

Confidence or fear?

Confidence that I'm dynamite in bed, fear that so many consecutive orgasms will eventually begin to feel painful.

You need to define your terms instead of speaking, in what you think is eloquence, but really is just thick level of BS spread over a very weak case of "It's good because it makes you feel good".

First of all, putting your thoughts into an excessively unnecessary number of words simply means that your correctness is multiplied. See: Immanuel Kant.

Second of all, of course that's where morality comes from! Feels good --> is good. It's like you're trying to say that we can't derive values from facts or something. Goodness gracious. I mean, sex feels great. How can f*cking not be a moral imperative?
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 11:39:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:26:18 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 8:58:57 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 11/9/2010 6:58:10 PM, annhasle wrote:

Oh no, it's never good when Cody responds to my posts....

Being a 'decent' human being is believing in moral sentiments? Sir, how does that particular delusion make you decent? Please, show me the error in my nihilistic ways that condemn me to being indecent. I see no reason to consult anything other than what you deem to be "coldly logical reasons". I mean, at least I have logic on my side...

Logic dictates that you behave like a decent member of society as long as it serves your interests to do so. When circumstances arise in which it can profit you to break from your usual practice of being a "good citizen", with no adverse personal consequences, then there's nothing to prevail upon you to remain a decent human being except decent-making sentiments such as empathy and compassion.

Ah, so this all comes down to your definition and belief of what 'good' is. Guess what? I don't believe there to be a 'good' or 'bad'... well, not in the way you are describing it to be. Now, your last sentence is such crap I don't know where to begin... If there's no adverse consequences and profit, why the hell would I remain what you deem to be a "good citizen"? That's illogical - I want what is advantageous for me which happens to be profit. Get it? Fail.

D@mn, girl! You're one baaaaaad b*tch.

HELLZ YEA.

And just to be provocative, Mother Teresa had moral sentiments, and Ted Bundy did not. I think this highlights that moral sentiments can make a major difference in our character and behavior.

No, you didn't prove anything. It's as logically sound as saying Mother Teresa was good because she was black.

True.

Of course.

But Ted Bundy was bad because he was white.

True.

Of course.

Moral sentiments do not ensure moral actions anymore than me liking ice cream ensures me to buy ice cream tomorrow.

I feel that your statement is somehow incorrect. I can't tell you exactly why, but my gut is telling me that you're wrong.

I'm not too concerned. The point has been made and now it's up to Charles to see if he can piece it altogether and actually make an argument.

You can poke all sorts of holes in reasoning to the conclusion that ethical sensibilities are necessary to make human beings good from a single example like this, but it does point up a fact that criminal profilers are quite familiar with, that folks without empathy are far more likely to do very wicked things to other people.

You really think that empathy is the deciding factor here? Not rage, disdain for human existence, hatred, fear, etc. Look, empathy does not ensure a citizen to be good. They could be able to experience the happiness or sadness of another sentient being, but just not give a flying fvck. You do know that many get a satisfaction out of experiencing their victim's sadness or fear when they're about to strike, since that just adds more to kill.... It makes them feel... alive.

Ironic, since it makes the victim feel... dead.

Not ironic. I'm pretty sure it's supposed to go that way. Lol xD

The development of a capacity for empathy seems to make an enormous difference in the moral formation of our personalities. Empathy and other moral feelings to seem to be highly critical to good moral character.

Pfft, a "good moral character"... Define good.

Not bad.

Smart@ss.

Define moral character.

According to the previously-defined moral paradigm, anyone who is black.

Or not white. Such as tan, yellow, purple or grey. Just not green - illegal aliens are bad.

And what are the other "moral feelings"? Love or lust?

I love lust.

Lust is love.

Happiness or sorrow?

Happiness that my lust will be fulfilled, sorrow that I have a refractory period.

And there's Cody's life wrapped up in one sentence...

Confidence or fear?

Confidence that I'm dynamite in bed, fear that so many consecutive orgasms will eventually begin to feel painful.

And there's Cody's dreams wrapped up in one sentence...

You need to define your terms instead of speaking, in what you think is eloquence, but really is just thick level of BS spread over a very weak case of "It's good because it makes you feel good".

First of all, putting your thoughts into an excessively unnecessary number of words simply means that your correctness is multiplied. See: Immanuel Kant.

Once again: smart@ss.

Second of all, of course that's where morality comes from! Feels good --> is good. It's like you're trying to say that we can't derive values from facts or something. Goodness gracious. I mean, sex feels great. How can f*cking not be a moral imperative?

I'm not going to dignify this with a response.... since this is exactly what Charleslb will say tomorrow. :)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:48:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
sex feels great. How can f*cking not be a moral imperative?

Something I'm trying to ask God about, but he never answers me...He's so mean to me :,(
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^ <hugs>
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:05:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^ <hugs>

OMG you killed Cody!
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:07:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:05:35 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^ <hugs>

OMG you killed Cody!

Pfft, that's YOUR hugs. I'm normal since I stay out of those threads.... :)
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:11:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^

I think that, next time, I'm just going to skip the formalities and shoot you in the face. I feel as though this is probably the right thing to do, since, due to your German heritage, you're super-white (and therefore super-evil).

<hugs>

Don't even try to make it up to me.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:11:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:07:44 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:05:35 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^ <hugs>

OMG you killed Cody!

Pfft, that's YOUR hugs. I'm normal since I stay out of those threads.... :)

damn it woman, do you know how to play?
Anyway there is no such thing as normal. In fact if you fit the stereotype etc you are in the minority, making you abnormal, soooooo either way, you aren't normal.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:12:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
And clearly, you don't "stay out of" those threads, since you knew that I had stated that in a thread.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:13:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:11:20 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^

I think that, next time, I'm just going to skip the formalities and shoot you in the face. I feel as though this is probably the right thing to do, since, due to your German heritage, you're super-white (and therefore super-evil).

<gasp> That was horrible...

<hugs>

Don't even try to make it up to me.

Pfft, never again. I take back my hug.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:15:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:11:37 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:07:44 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:05:35 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^ <hugs>

OMG you killed Cody!

Pfft, that's YOUR hugs. I'm normal since I stay out of those threads.... :)

damn it woman, do you know how to play?
Anyway there is no such thing as normal. In fact if you fit the stereotype etc you are in the minority, making you abnormal, soooooo either way, you aren't normal.

Jeez, for once ya couldn't let me be normal?? Lol

And in response to your other post... Yes, I've read them since threads tend to leak out into other threads (like right now) but no, I have never played therefore I'm immune to this hug o' death.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:22:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:15:48 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:11:37 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:07:44 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:05:35 AM, lovelife wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^ <hugs>

OMG you killed Cody!

Pfft, that's YOUR hugs. I'm normal since I stay out of those threads.... :)

damn it woman, do you know how to play?
Anyway there is no such thing as normal. In fact if you fit the stereotype etc you are in the minority, making you abnormal, soooooo either way, you aren't normal.

Jeez, for once ya couldn't let me be normal?? Lol

Lol no, I don't have that kind of power

And in response to your other post... Yes, I've read them since threads tend to leak out into other threads (like right now) but no, I have never played therefore I'm immune to this hug o' death.

Lol but the hug thing was something I came up with with my friend years ago, it really had no bearing on this topic. Much like when I posted it in that thread I had to explain, and I'm sure I have explained on this site before (but its kind of a dumb thing so I don't mind re-explaining, lol)
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2010 12:29:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/10/2010 12:13:42 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:11:20 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:04:26 AM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/10/2010 12:00:24 AM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:54:30 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:52:32 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 11/9/2010 11:47:48 PM, annhasle wrote:
Shutting Cody down

Did you even laugh at any of that?

Yes. But someone has to remain serious on this site when you post... And that's me. ;)

That's upsetting. You killed my satirical thunder.

Aw... that sucks. I promise, next time you post something satirical, I'll play along. But this time it was too tempting to play against ya... ^_^

I think that, next time, I'm just going to skip the formalities and shoot you in the face. I feel as though this is probably the right thing to do, since, due to your German heritage, you're super-white (and therefore super-evil).

<gasp> That was horrible...

Problem, Anne?

<hugs>

Don't even try to make it up to me.

Pfft, never again. I take back my hug.

I've already got it.