Total Posts:114|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Abrahamism and Terrorism

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.

In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:42:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

Who are you to define what a good culture and an evil culture is?
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:44:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:42:05 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

Who are you to define what a good culture and an evil culture is?

Divine authority, divine institution and a personal moral compass.

Who are you to say Nazism, jihadism, Japanese imperialism, atheistic genocide etc... are good cultures?
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:46:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:44:58 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:42:05 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

Who are you to define what a good culture and an evil culture is?

Divine authority, divine institution and a personal moral compass.

So this gives you the right to kill?


Who are you to say Nazism

Never said they were good.

jihadism

How is christian "jihadism" any better? (Besides, jihad literally means struggle and refers to personal struggles.)

Japanese imperialism

Why is american imperialism better?

atheistic genocide

Christian genocide is much better then?

etc... are good cultures?

Never said that.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:50:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
This is a specific person's belief. Please don't hold all secular humanists to Dawkins' ideas.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


There's a difference between what Dawkins is advocating and what you are advocating. Dawkins argues that for the good of the child, he should be put to death. That is, the child will suffer more agony in the long run, so we ought to kill him in order to minimize is own suffering.

That's different from your argument. You are claiming we should kill people because their beliefs are different from ours.
In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

First of all, our culture is not good in any way. It was a product of violence, produced slavery, promotes discrimination and torture, etc.

Second, rights serve as a side constraint on the hedonic calculus. Even John Stuart Mill, the founder of rule utilitarianism, concedes this.

Next I would question the notion that we are complicit in the acts of murder. It would not be our decision to murder those individuals in the future; it would be their decision, and there really is no intrinsic proof that those individuals would murder us. This is just an assumption that you are making.
The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

You only think that your culture is good because you grew up in it. They have the same justification for their culture. There is no objective basis for determining which is better unless we look at a rights-based scheme, and in the rights-based scheme, your culture is evil if you are pre-emptively killing others.
The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

Do you have any proof that those specific children would grow up to harm the United States? I mean REAL, objective proof and not just conjecture. Perhaps those children would be part of a youth reform movement. Not all children grow up satisfied with their culture (I'm a good example).

Killing people based on potential leads to a slippery slope that justifies ALL murder because anybody could have the potential to kill another person. Self-defense theory stipulates that we can only respond to immediate threats since we do not have definitive proof of what will happen in the future.
So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

You still haven't answered my questions in the OP. Plus, the quotes I posted focused on killing Gentiles of the "good United States culture" too. Is that justified? You are in the category "non-Jew", so your culture analysis is entirely irrelevant since you are a goyim and the extremists want to kill you too.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:51:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:46:42 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:44:58 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:42:05 AM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

Who are you to define what a good culture and an evil culture is?

Divine authority, divine institution and a personal moral compass.

So this gives you the right to kill?

Correct.



Who are you to say Nazism

Never said they were good.

jihadism

How is christian "jihadism" any better? (Besides, jihad literally means struggle and refers to personal struggles.)

Christianity does not have territorial jihadism. Jihadism is a territorial issue based upon ideological control.

Japanese imperialism

Why is american imperialism better?

Define American imperialism.

atheistic genocide

Christian genocide is much better then?

Define Christian genocide.

etc... are good cultures?

Never said that.

Yet you seem to be attempting to criticize moral warrant, without warrant.
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 10:54:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

Who are you to define what a good culture and an evil culture is?

Divine authority, divine institution and a personal moral compass.

So this gives you the right to kill?

Correct.

Prove God told you to kill. Your moral compass must be fucked up if that's what you think...




Who are you to say Nazism

Never said they were good.

jihadism

How is christian "jihadism" any better? (Besides, jihad literally means struggle and refers to personal struggles.)

Christianity does not have territorial jihadism. Jihadism is a territorial issue based upon ideological control.

No. It refers to personal struggles. And you honestly are going to tell me that there were never any Christian "jihads" in history? Or there are no radical Christian groups?


Japanese imperialism

Why is american imperialism better?

Define American imperialism.

Define Japanese imperialism...your just ducking the question.


atheistic genocide

Christian genocide is much better then?

Define Christian genocide.

Define atheisic genocide. Why would it be better if a Christian group committed genocide?


etc... are good cultures?

Never said that.

Yet you seem to be attempting to criticize moral warrant, without warrant.

Not really...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 11:01:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:50:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
This is a specific person's belief. Please don't hold all secular humanists to Dawkins' ideas.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


There's a difference between what Dawkins is advocating and what you are advocating. Dawkins argues that for the good of the child, he should be put to death. That is, the child will suffer more agony in the long run, so we ought to kill him in order to minimize is own suffering.

That's different from your argument. You are claiming we should kill people because their beliefs are different from ours.

The point is moral sufficiency. Think on it.

In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

First of all, our culture is not good in any way. It was a product of violence, produced slavery, promotes discrimination and torture, etc.

Every society is a product of defeating the evil inside of it or perpetuating that evil to the next generation. American culture is a product of its victory OVER the mentality of slavery. It is a product of its victory OVER discrimination.


Second, rights serve as a side constraint on the hedonic calculus. Even John Stuart Mill, the founder of rule utilitarianism, concedes this.

Next I would question the notion that we are complicit in the acts of murder. It would not be our decision to murder those individuals in the future; it would be their decision, and there really is no intrinsic proof that those individuals would murder us. This is just an assumption that you are making.

Right. That is just denying the warrant given by ignoring intellectual assent. All cultures train their children with the evil inherent in them. Jihadism has not gone away in over a thousand years.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

You only think that your culture is good because you grew up in it. They have the same justification for their culture. There is no objective basis for determining which is better unless we look at a rights-based scheme, and in the rights-based scheme, your culture is evil if you are pre-emptively killing others.

The objective basis is Divine authority, divine institution and personal objective moral compass.

The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

Do you have any proof that those specific children would grow up to harm the United States? I mean REAL, objective proof and not just conjecture. Perhaps those children would be part of a youth reform movement. Not all children grow up satisfied with their culture (I'm a good example).

To not act is to gamble with the lives of your innocent children. Given that history warrants such a view, it is not a gamble to act.


Killing people based on potential leads to a slippery slope that justifies ALL murder because anybody could have the potential to kill another person. Self-defense theory stipulates that we can only respond to immediate threats since we do not have definitive proof of what will happen in the future.

Not at all. You are just ignoring warrant. That is called the process of moral sufficiency and moral justification.

So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

You still haven't answered my questions in the OP. Plus, the quotes I posted focused on killing Gentiles of the "good United States culture" too. Is that justified? You are in the category "non-Jew", so your culture analysis is entirely irrelevant since you are a goyim and the extremists want to kill you too.

You misrepresent the discussions. It is discussing Jewish superiority from divine institution, but for the direct purpose it is discussing action to stop the future slaughter of their children by the jihadist cultures.
If America takes action to harm the Jews in any way, I will side with the Jews.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 11:12:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:54:45 AM, THEBOMB wrote:

Divine authority, divine institution and a personal moral compass.

So this gives you the right to kill?

Correct.

Prove God told you to kill. Your moral compass must be fucked up if that's what you think...

We operate in a framework of triune moral verification. If you do not have the other two as a framework to triangulate your morals, if your person moral compass gets f'ed up, you have no knowledge of it.





Who are you to say Nazism

Never said they were good.

jihadism

How is christian "jihadism" any better? (Besides, jihad literally means struggle and refers to personal struggles.)

Christianity does not have territorial jihadism. Jihadism is a territorial issue based upon ideological control.

No. It refers to personal struggles. And you honestly are going to tell me that there were never any Christian "jihads" in history? Or there are no radical Christian groups?

There are no Christian Jihads in the correct term. Is there Christian radical groups? nnngh. Not that defined a Christian culture for any period of time. The Jews are directly are dealing with a Jihadist culture that is surrounding them, bent on their destruction.



Japanese imperialism

Why is american imperialism better?

Define American imperialism.

Define Japanese imperialism...your just ducking the question.

Japanese Imperialism, unlike european imperialism is defined that a God-man, that is direct divinity authorized and trained children in the oppression, enslavement, theft and murder of countless Chinese and south pacific natives.

I am not saying that American imperialism or even european was correct. Again our culture is the result of victory OVER imperialism, victory OVER slavery etc. by WWII.



atheistic genocide

Christian genocide is much better then?

Define Christian genocide.

Define atheisic genocide. Why would it be better if a Christian group committed genocide?

Atheistic genocide was the declaration of murderous intent by action against all religious ideologies within atheistic states.



etc... are good cultures?

Never said that.

Yet you seem to be attempting to criticize moral warrant, without warrant.

Not really...

lol, yes really.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 11:20:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 11:01:41 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:50:42 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.
This is a specific person's belief. Please don't hold all secular humanists to Dawkins' ideas.
I cite a video where Dawkins admits as much in his own view.


There's a difference between what Dawkins is advocating and what you are advocating. Dawkins argues that for the good of the child, he should be put to death. That is, the child will suffer more agony in the long run, so we ought to kill him in order to minimize is own suffering.

That's different from your argument. You are claiming we should kill people because their beliefs are different from ours.

The point is moral sufficiency. Think on it.

I would contend that Dawkins is incorrect in that scenario, as are you. Hedonic calculus cannot justify murder.

I mean, life is fundamentally a time of suffering. Everyone suffers. Does that justify killing all newborn infants in order to prevent them from suffering?
In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

First of all, our culture is not good in any way. It was a product of violence, produced slavery, promotes discrimination and torture, etc.

Every society is a product of defeating the evil inside of it or perpetuating that evil to the next generation. American culture is a product of its victory OVER the mentality of slavery. It is a product of its victory OVER discrimination.

At one point, culture and society permitted those evils. American culture TODAY is a result of victory over those things (although discrimination still exists), but at one point it wasn't. Those roots are still firmly in place today, as evidenced by the existence of nationalist groups like the KKK.

Second, rights serve as a side constraint on the hedonic calculus. Even John Stuart Mill, the founder of rule utilitarianism, concedes this.

Next I would question the notion that we are complicit in the acts of murder. It would not be our decision to murder those individuals in the future; it would be their decision, and there really is no intrinsic proof that those individuals would murder us. This is just an assumption that you are making.

Right. That is just denying the warrant given by ignoring intellectual assent. All cultures train their children with the evil inherent in them. Jihadism has not gone away in over a thousand years.

You still haven't responded to the point: it is unjustified to kill another individual unless he attacks you. You are killing based on assumption. Not all people in Muslim cultures despise the people in the United States. Not all Muslims are jihadists. If their culture inherently supports this, as you claim, then it is easy to see that people can overcome the evil taught by previous generations. This is true even when we examine the abolition of slavery and Jim Crows Laws in the United States. Parents instilled their children with the evil values, but the children were still able to overcome them.
The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

You only think that your culture is good because you grew up in it. They have the same justification for their culture. There is no objective basis for determining which is better unless we look at a rights-based scheme, and in the rights-based scheme, your culture is evil if you are pre-emptively killing others.

The objective basis is Divine authority, divine institution and personal objective moral compass.


LOL

1. God does not exist. Please offer clear, testable proof that he does.

2. Divine authority is hogwash. All religions, including Judaism and Islam claim that they have divine authority to do as they please. How do we know who is correct?

3. LMAO at "personal objective moral compass". That's the definition of subjective moral values.
The discussion is an epistemological moral calculation.
"There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults."
From your first link.

We made the same decision in America concerning WWII. The children were going to be raised to be evil and harm our children if we did nothing.

Do you have any proof that those specific children would grow up to harm the United States? I mean REAL, objective proof and not just conjecture. Perhaps those children would be part of a youth reform movement. Not all children grow up satisfied with their culture (I'm a good example).

To not act is to gamble with the lives of your innocent children. Given that history warrants such a view, it is not a gamble to act.

You cannot gamble with people's lives. You might as well kill all people because there is a chance that they can harm you. Self defense is reactionary, not preemptive. You have no objective proof that those children would be evil.

Killing people based on potential leads to a slippery slope that justifies ALL murder because anybody could have the potential to kill another person. Self-defense theory stipulates that we can only respond to immediate threats since we do not have definitive proof of what will happen in the future.

Not at all. You are just ignoring warrant. That is called the process of moral sufficiency and moral justification.

How am I ignoring warrant? Killing people for potential to harm you in the future (i.e. prevention of gambling) is EXACTLY what you are advocating.
So really, the question do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

You still haven't answered my questions in the OP. Plus, the quotes I posted focused on killing Gentiles of the "good United States culture" too. Is that justified? You are in the category "non-Jew", so your culture analysis is entirely irrelevant since you are a goyim and the extremists want to kill you too.

You misrepresent the discussions. It is discussing Jewish superiority from divine institution, but for the direct purpose it is discussing action to stop the future slaughter of their children by the jihadist cultures.
False. BOTH articles discuss subjugating Gentiles like you and killing them. I'm not misrepresenting the discussion insofar as the advocacy of the extremists is that even people like you should be killed.
If America takes action to harm the Jews in any way, I will side with the Jews.
LOL, what if the Jews decide to harm America in any way. Will you still side with them just because some
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 11:41:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 11:20:19 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
There's a difference between what Dawkins is advocating and what you are advocating. Dawkins argues that for the good of the child, he should be put to death. That is, the child will suffer more agony in the long run, so we ought to kill him in order to minimize is own suffering.

That's different from your argument. You are claiming we should kill people because their beliefs are different from ours.

The point is moral sufficiency. Think on it.

I would contend that Dawkins is incorrect in that scenario, as are you. Hedonic calculus cannot justify murder.

I mean, life is fundamentally a time of suffering. Everyone suffers. Does that justify killing all newborn infants in order to prevent them from suffering?

So you like watching little babies suffer? You are sick individual.

In America we had our own dilemma. Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo etc...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

First of all, our culture is not good in any way. It was a product of violence, produced slavery, promotes discrimination and torture, etc.

Every society is a product of defeating the evil inside of it or perpetuating that evil to the next generation. American culture is a product of its victory OVER the mentality of slavery. It is a product of its victory OVER discrimination.

At one point, culture and society permitted those evils. American culture TODAY is a result of victory over those things (although discrimination still exists), but at one point it wasn't. Those roots are still firmly in place today, as evidenced by the existence of nationalist groups like the KKK.

Jeebus, that was my point.

Second, rights serve as a side constraint on the hedonic calculus. Even John Stuart Mill, the founder of rule utilitarianism, concedes this.

Next I would question the notion that we are complicit in the acts of murder. It would not be our decision to murder those individuals in the future; it would be their decision, and there really is no intrinsic proof that those individuals would murder us. This is just an assumption that you are making.

Right. That is just denying the warrant given by ignoring intellectual assent. All cultures train their children with the evil inherent in them. Jihadism has not gone away in over a thousand years.

You still haven't responded to the point: it is unjustified to kill another individual unless he attacks you. You are killing based on assumption. Not all people in Muslim cultures despise the people in the United States. Not all Muslims are jihadists. If their culture inherently supports this, as you claim, then it is easy to see that people can overcome the evil taught by previous generations. This is true even when we examine the abolition of slavery and Jim Crows Laws in the United States. Parents instilled their children with the evil values, but the children were still able to overcome them.

The point is there is justification for attacking an individual who has not attacked you. It is the whole the Jews are making in first strike situation. You know they will attack you.

Again you are banking on the lives of your innocent children for the grand 'hope' that the culture will reform itself. They are justified in wiping out a culture that wants and trains its children, to wipe them out.

The perpetuation of a good culture through the survival of its children is infinitely more important that the children of an evil culture that will be raised to perpetuate that evil culture.

You only think that your culture is good because you grew up in it. They have the same justification for their culture. There is no objective basis for determining which is better unless we look at a rights-based scheme, and in the rights-based scheme, your culture is evil if you are pre-emptively killing others.

The objective basis is Divine authority, divine institution and personal objective moral compass.


LOL

1. God does not exist. Please offer clear, testable proof that he does.

LOL. Review the other forum discussions.


2. Divine authority is hogwash. All religions, including Judaism and Islam claim that they have divine authority to do as they please. How do we know who is correct?

Any moral framework that triangulates its belief systems will be invariably superior to one such as a secular framework. You have only your personal moral compass, which we know can be skewed. The question is determining which of the divine ones is correct.
Judaism does not have a triune moral compass. It no longer has the priesthood in authority.
Islam does not have a triune moral compass. They are awaiting the Mahdi to come to unite them institutionally.

If you argue for a lower form of divine institution such as local church or mosque, that is still superior. Now one only need to do is find out which God is the correct one. That is where Theological studies come in.

3. LMAO at "personal objective moral compass". That's the definition of subjective moral values.

No its not. A personal moral compass should never involve a subjective process. It would be inferior to do so. An objective personal moral compass is your ability to calculate the nature of morality objectively and add it to your personal framework. Like mathematics, some do it well and some do it poorly. Objective moral values are found in God's nature.


To not act is to gamble with the lives of your innocent children. Given that history warrants such a view, it is not a gamble to act.

You cannot gamble with people's lives. You might as well kill all people because there is a chance that they can harm you. Self defense is reactionary, not preemptive. You have no objective proof that those children would be evil.

This is simple probability calculus. Certain cultures that are currently teaching harm against you are NOT all cultures need to be wiped out cause they could change their teachings to then harm you.


Killing people based on potential leads to a slippery slope that justifies ALL murder because anybody could have the potential to kill another person. Self-defense theory stipulates that we can only respond to immediate threats since we do not have definitive proof of what will happen in the future.

Not at all. You are just ignoring warrant. That is called the process of moral sufficiency and moral justification.

How am I ignoring warrant? Killing people for potential to harm you in the future (i.e. prevention of gambling) is EXACTLY what you are advocating.

Again a culture teaching harm to you, a good culture is obviously needing to be 'dealt' with. Based on the severity and epidemiology of the teaching directly dictates the necessary action.


You misrepresent the discussions. It is discussing Jewish superiority from divine institution, but for the direct purpose it is discussing action to stop the future slaughter of their children by the jihadist cultures.
False. BOTH articles discuss subjugating Gentiles like you and killing them. I'm not misrepresenting the discussion insofar as the advocacy of the extremists is that even people like you should be killed.

I already quoted you the articles. I care not even if the articles are misrepresenting the discussion that is discussing action against Iran and the necessary of dealing with the Jihadic cultures around them.

The question is furthered in the teaching of the enslavement of those people around them. I am interested to see their moral sufficiency for that te
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:09:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.

http://www.secularhumanism.org...

For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

It seems you have a difficult time separating the ills of religion and the ills of the state.

So really, the question is do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

SEE: Immanuel Kant
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:10:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Well, you have a right to be disgusted. The views espoused by Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Yosef are generally considered extreme even within their own communities. Their specific names come up as the quintessential examples any time someone is trying to paint Jews as extremists. Rabbi Yosef especially, who is an embarrassment to most Jews world wide. They are however the pinnacle of this type of extremism though; the Osama Bin Laden, or Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, if you will, of extremism within Judaism.

Not that this justifies their view (which I find equally disturbing), but they are such an extreme minority, within an even smaller, nearly insignificant minority, that the total number of Jews sharing their views could fit into my garage.

Nonetheless, your point of the often violent nature of Abrahamic religions is not inaccurate. Although it's not unique to 'Abrahamism', anything that divides us in the world creates the potential for violence and perpetual warfare.
Debate.org Moderator
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:12:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 11:41:51 AM, Gileandos wrote:

So you like watching little babies suffer? You are sick individual.

Yeah, that's definitely not an appeal to emotion logical fallacy combined with an ad hominem.

No, I don't like seeing babies suffer, but I don't think that just because they suffer we should kill them. You also ignored the analysis about life is defined by suffering in the first place, so your argument justifies killing every person in order to prevent them from suffering.


Jeebus, that was my point.
Not really. I said that the roots of those problems still exist in our society and still are manifested in our society. So, if that's your point, our society is still evil.


The point is there is justification for attacking an individual who has not attacked you. It is the whole the Jews are making in first strike situation. You know they will attack you.

It's fundamentally impossible to know objectively whether or not someone will attack you.
Again you are banking on the lives of your innocent children for the grand 'hope' that the culture will reform itself. They are justified in wiping out a culture that wants and trains its children, to wipe them out.

Well, considering that I have provided examples both from American history as well as the contemporary Middle East that demonstrate that the majority of people are able to overcome the cultural training that you assert exists, I think that a preemptive strike is pretty much unjustified even on your grounds insofar as the culture IS reforming itself.

LOL

1. God does not exist. Please offer clear, testable proof that he does.

LOL. Review the other forum discussions.

I have. There isn't any good proof.

2. Divine authority is hogwash. All religions, including Judaism and Islam claim that they have divine authority to do as they please. How do we know who is correct?

Any moral framework that triangulates its belief systems will be invariably superior to one such as a secular framework. You have only your personal moral compass, which we know can be skewed. The question is determining which of the divine ones is correct.
"Divine" morality is not any more objective than my personal moral framework. It's basically what God subjectively argues is ok, correct? If God says that it is ok for the Chosen People to slaughter innocents of a peaceful village simply because they happen to live in territory, it's justified. If God says that the people in that village cannot retaliate, their self-defense is unjustified. Divine morality is every bit as arbitrary as personal moral norms.
Judaism does not have a triune moral compass. It no longer has the priesthood in authority.
Islam does not have a triune moral compass. They are awaiting the Mahdi to come to unite them institutionally.

If you argue for a lower form of divine institution such as local church or mosque, that is still superior. Now one only need to do is find out which God is the correct one. That is where Theological studies come in.

How does Theology determine which religion is correct? I'd like some examples of this, please.
3. LMAO at "personal objective moral compass". That's the definition of subjective moral values.

No its not. A personal moral compass should never involve a subjective process. It would be inferior to do so. An objective personal moral compass is your ability to calculate the nature of morality objectively and add it to your personal framework. Like mathematics, some do it well and some do it poorly.
If I'm calculating morality objectively, then it's not based on my personal moral compass but rather on an object standard that is external to my compass.
Objective moral values are found in God's nature.

See above.

Note that the rights-based system of morality is more objective than any other system of morality insofar as it is cosmopolitan, universal, and transcends cultural norms.

This is simple probability calculus. Certain cultures that are currently teaching harm against you are NOT all cultures need to be wiped out cause they could change their teachings to then harm you.

1. As I noted with examples earlier, just because people teach something doesn't mean that the next generation follows it. This is pretty common; every society decries the "youth rebellion". Just because the culture teaches something doesn't mean that people are going to act on it.

2. By attempting to destroy them, you do nothing more than add legitimacy to their claims. People want to destroy other cultures because they fear that those cultures are trying to destroy them. If you attempt to destroy them, they now can more easily mobilize their populus.

3. Just because people as a group are more likely to attack you doesn't mean that individuals in the group are more likely to attack you. You are treating individuals as inseparable from the herd and are destroying them indiscriminately.

4. You give them moral legitimacy when you preemptively strike because you attack them without violent provocation, meaning that retaliation is justified for self defense purposes.

You still haven't dealt with the fact that even utilitarians like Mill concede that rights are a side constraint on the hedonic calculus.

5. Your arguments justify them preemptively striking you. If they think you will strike, then they should strike first. This erodes the existence of any possibility of a peace process.

Again a culture teaching harm to you, a good culture is obviously needing to be 'dealt' with. Based on the severity and epidemiology of the teaching directly dictates the necessary action.

It still doesn't justify preemptively harming them. Self defense is reactionary.


I already quoted you the articles. I care not even if the articles are misrepresenting the discussion that is discussing action against Iran and the necessary of dealing with the Jihadic cultures around them.

I can quote you the articles too . . .They don't deal with Jihadic cultures at all. They are discussing extremist Jews who think think that subjugating Gentiles is good. You are twisting the articles into another discussion instead of dealing with them directly. Please deal with the fact that extremist Jews think that you are cattle (goyim) and exist only to serve them.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:14:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:10:43 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Well, you have a right to be disgusted. The views espoused by Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Yosef are generally considered extreme even within their own communities. Their specific names come up as the quintessential examples any time someone is trying to paint Jews as extremists. Rabbi Yosef especially, who is an embarrassment to most Jews world wide. They are however the pinnacle of this type of extremism though; the Osama Bin Laden, or Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, if you will, of extremism within Judaism.

Not that this justifies their view (which I find equally disturbing), but they are such an extreme minority, within an even smaller, nearly insignificant minority, that the total number of Jews sharing their views could fit into my garage.

Nonetheless, your point of the often violent nature of Abrahamic religions is not inaccurate. Although it's not unique to 'Abrahamism', anything that divides us in the world creates the potential for violence and perpetual warfare.

What I find ridiculous is that most of the prominent religious warfare is basically in-fighting between Abrahamic groups.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:19:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:14:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:10:43 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Well, you have a right to be disgusted. The views espoused by Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Yosef are generally considered extreme even within their own communities. Their specific names come up as the quintessential examples any time someone is trying to paint Jews as extremists. Rabbi Yosef especially, who is an embarrassment to most Jews world wide. They are however the pinnacle of this type of extremism though; the Osama Bin Laden, or Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, if you will, of extremism within Judaism.

Not that this justifies their view (which I find equally disturbing), but they are such an extreme minority, within an even smaller, nearly insignificant minority, that the total number of Jews sharing their views could fit into my garage.

Nonetheless, your point of the often violent nature of Abrahamic religions is not inaccurate. Although it's not unique to 'Abrahamism', anything that divides us in the world creates the potential for violence and perpetual warfare.

What I find ridiculous is that most of the prominent religious warfare is basically in-fighting between Abrahamic groups.

Only 7% of wars are religious in nature.
Given that the three Abrahamic religions make up the vast majority of the planets population that is going to be obvious.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:21:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:09:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:39:09 AM, Gileandos wrote:

Even secular humanism holds moral sufficiency for killing children.

http://www.secularhumanism.org...


For the protection of our innocents we deemed it proper to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocents of an evil culture. To not do so was to be complicit in the murder of millions of innocents in our own good culture.

It seems you have a difficult time separating the ills of religion and the ills of the state.

No you did not read my whole post.

So really, the question is do we let our innocent children be murdered by the indoctrination of evil cultures or do we act?

SEE: Immanuel Kant

Handsome looking fellow:
http://www.google.com...(painted_portrait).jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org...(painted_portrait).jpg&h=371&w=294&sz=118&tbnid=9Uvy0b5Q6lBSmM:&tbnh=92&tbnw=73&zoom=1&usg=__OSQ0ec34yct0oPByIog66PqgjLk=&docid=BabAe_-MEl0pDM&sa=X&ei=80DrT7kziKOtAfzT7ckF&ved=0CGoQ9QEwBQ&dur=241
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:25:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:14:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:10:43 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Well, you have a right to be disgusted. The views espoused by Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Yosef are generally considered extreme even within their own communities. Their specific names come up as the quintessential examples any time someone is trying to paint Jews as extremists. Rabbi Yosef especially, who is an embarrassment to most Jews world wide. They are however the pinnacle of this type of extremism though; the Osama Bin Laden, or Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, if you will, of extremism within Judaism.

Not that this justifies their view (which I find equally disturbing), but they are such an extreme minority, within an even smaller, nearly insignificant minority, that the total number of Jews sharing their views could fit into my garage.

Nonetheless, your point of the often violent nature of Abrahamic religions is not inaccurate. Although it's not unique to 'Abrahamism', anything that divides us in the world creates the potential for violence and perpetual warfare.

What I find ridiculous is that most of the prominent religious warfare is basically in-fighting between Abrahamic groups.

Not really sure why that should surprise you. In-fighting among religious groups is constant historically. Most deaths these days caused by violence motivated by religion are likely Muslims by other Muslims; in-fighting within a specific religion on the same religion.

...At another point it may have been Protestants and Catholics.

In-fighting in religion is nearly as old as religion itself.
Debate.org Moderator
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:27:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:25:16 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:14:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:10:43 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Well, you have a right to be disgusted. The views espoused by Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Yosef are generally considered extreme even within their own communities. Their specific names come up as the quintessential examples any time someone is trying to paint Jews as extremists. Rabbi Yosef especially, who is an embarrassment to most Jews world wide. They are however the pinnacle of this type of extremism though; the Osama Bin Laden, or Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, if you will, of extremism within Judaism.

Not that this justifies their view (which I find equally disturbing), but they are such an extreme minority, within an even smaller, nearly insignificant minority, that the total number of Jews sharing their views could fit into my garage.

Nonetheless, your point of the often violent nature of Abrahamic religions is not inaccurate. Although it's not unique to 'Abrahamism', anything that divides us in the world creates the potential for violence and perpetual warfare.

What I find ridiculous is that most of the prominent religious warfare is basically in-fighting between Abrahamic groups.

Not really sure why that should surprise you. In-fighting among religious groups is constant historically. Most deaths these days caused by violence motivated by religion are likely Muslims by other Muslims; in-fighting within a specific religion on the same religion.

...At another point it may have been Protestants and Catholics.

In-fighting in religion is nearly as old as religion itself.

I don't think it's surprising; I just think it's silly.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:36:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:12:07 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 11:41:51 AM, Gileandos wrote:

So you like watching little babies suffer? You are sick individual.

Yeah, that's definitely not an appeal to emotion logical fallacy combined with an ad hominem.
It was a reductio proving a point.


No, I don't like seeing babies suffer, but I don't think that just because they suffer we should kill them. You also ignored the analysis about life is defined by suffering in the first place, so your argument justifies killing every person in order to prevent them from suffering.

So you are saying you have a morally sufficient reason for forcing babies to suffer needlessly and dying a horrible death, when you could give them relief. Thank you for proving my point.





Jeebus, that was my point.
Not really. I said that the roots of those problems still exist in our society and still are manifested in our society. So, if that's your point, our society is still evil.

Again that is a percentage calculation. Easy enough to do. Also Christianity has always worked to reform and eliminate evil, thus a Christian culture can be given time to reform, where as other cultures do not inherently work for their own reform, but work against it.




The point is there is justification for attacking an individual who has not attacked you. It is the whole the Jews are making in first strike situation. You know they will attack you.

It's fundamentally impossible to know objectively whether or not someone will attack you.

Yeah, right. Iran is getting nukes after a declaration 'to destroy the Jews' is REALLY hard to tell...

Again you are banking on the lives of your innocent children for the grand 'hope' that the culture will reform itself. They are justified in wiping out a culture that wants and trains its children, to wipe them out.

Well, considering that I have provided examples both from American history as well as the contemporary Middle East that demonstrate that the majority of people are able to overcome the cultural training that you assert exists, I think that a preemptive strike is pretty much unjustified even on your grounds insofar as the culture IS reforming itself.

A transcendent moral philosophy (Christianity) that demands and teaches reforming oneself was within the reforming cultures. Not every culture has this or has one that is strong. Not a hard calculation.

LOL

1. God does not exist. Please offer clear, testable proof that he does.

LOL. Review the other forum discussions.

I have. There isn't any good proof.

That is at least a change from the historic answers of 'there is none'.


2. Divine authority is hogwash. All religions, including Judaism and Islam claim that they have divine authority to do as they please. How do we know who is correct?

Any moral framework that triangulates its belief systems will be invariably superior to one such as a secular framework. You have only your personal moral compass, which we know can be skewed. The question is determining which of the divine ones is correct.
"Divine" morality is not any more objective than my personal moral framework. It's basically what God subjectively argues is ok, correct? If God says that it is ok for the Chosen People to slaughter innocents of a peaceful village simply because they happen to live in territory, it's justified. If God says that the people in that village cannot retaliate, their self-defense is unjustified. Divine morality is every bit as arbitrary as personal moral norms.

No. Objective moral values are found within the nature of the perfect moral being. As circleness is within the nature of circle or the squareness. These are static calculable values.

Judaism does not have a triune moral compass. It no longer has the priesthood in authority.
Islam does not have a triune moral compass. They are awaiting the Mahdi to come to unite them institutionally.

If you argue for a lower form of divine institution such as local church or mosque, that is still superior. Now one only need to do is find out which God is the correct one. That is where Theological studies come in.

How does Theology determine which religion is correct? I'd like some examples of this, please.

It is called study of God and religious belief.
https://www.google.com...

3. LMAO at "personal objective moral compass". That's the definition of subjective moral values.

No its not. A personal moral compass should never involve a subjective process. It would be inferior to do so. An objective personal moral compass is your ability to calculate the nature of morality objectively and add it to your personal framework. Like mathematics, some do it well and some do it poorly.
If I'm calculating morality objectively, then it's not based on my personal moral compass but rather on an object standard that is external to my compass.
Objective moral values are found in God's nature.

See above.
You see above in my last answer.

Note that the rights-based system of morality is more objective than any other system of morality insofar as it is cosmopolitan, universal, and transcends cultural norms.

This is simple probability calculus. Certain cultures that are currently teaching harm against you are NOT all cultures need to be wiped out cause they could change their teachings to then harm you.

1. As I noted with examples earlier, just because people teach something doesn't mean that the next generation follows it. This is pretty common; every society decries the "youth rebellion". Just because the culture teaches something doesn't mean that people are going to act on it.

Ignoring the actuality of present reforming agency within the culture.


2. By attempting to destroy them, you do nothing more than add legitimacy to their claims. People want to destroy other cultures because they fear that those cultures are trying to destroy them. If you attempt to destroy them, they now can more easily mobilize their populus.

Personal perspective with little merit.


3. Just because people as a group are more likely to attack you doesn't mean that individuals in the group are more likely to attack you. You are treating individuals as inseparable from the herd and are destroying them indiscriminately.

Lol, hence the Jews wanting to enslave the other cultures to keep them from forming group hierarchy. You just validated their viewpoint.


4. You give them moral legitimacy when you preemptively strike because you attack them without violent provocation, meaning that retaliation is justified for self defense purposes.

Your personal opinion without warrant. If they are all dead it does not matter.


You still haven't dealt with the fact that even utilitarians like Mill concede that rights are a side constraint on the hedonic calculus.

5. Your arguments justify them preemptively striking you. If they think you will strike, then they should strike first. This erodes the existence of any possibility of a peace process.

Given one culture is evil and demanding the destruction of the Jew... on can only wonder.
airmax1227
Posts: 13,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:38:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:27:30 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:25:16 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:14:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:10:43 PM, airmax1227 wrote:
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?

Well, you have a right to be disgusted. The views espoused by Rabbi Shapira and Rabbi Yosef are generally considered extreme even within their own communities. Their specific names come up as the quintessential examples any time someone is trying to paint Jews as extremists. Rabbi Yosef especially, who is an embarrassment to most Jews world wide. They are however the pinnacle of this type of extremism though; the Osama Bin Laden, or Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, if you will, of extremism within Judaism.

Not that this justifies their view (which I find equally disturbing), but they are such an extreme minority, within an even smaller, nearly insignificant minority, that the total number of Jews sharing their views could fit into my garage.

Nonetheless, your point of the often violent nature of Abrahamic religions is not inaccurate. Although it's not unique to 'Abrahamism', anything that divides us in the world creates the potential for violence and perpetual warfare.

What I find ridiculous is that most of the prominent religious warfare is basically in-fighting between Abrahamic groups.

Not really sure why that should surprise you. In-fighting among religious groups is constant historically. Most deaths these days caused by violence motivated by religion are likely Muslims by other Muslims; in-fighting within a specific religion on the same religion.

...At another point it may have been Protestants and Catholics.

In-fighting in religion is nearly as old as religion itself.

I don't think it's surprising; I just think it's silly.

It is silly.. But look at the places where this type of violence is most likely to happen... Populations are likely to exceed sustainability and violence is inevitable. Where disease and starvation used to resolve that issue, now it's perpetual religious conflict, and the nature of the world continues... Or something. Either way it is silly, and the over-population in many of these places is caused by religion itself. So, some places are just screwed by necessity.
Debate.org Moderator
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 12:57:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 10:06:32 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
http://maxblumenthal.com...

http://www.tnr.com...

Please read the articles above. Someone sent them to me last night, and I was pretty disgusted, to be honest.

It seems to me that Abrahamic religions are the most violent and promote the use of terrorism and carnage in order to spread their beliefs. Why is this a central part of your belief system?


That's pretty eff'd up.

I think this show's a trend... when man creates, or adds, to scripture they all seem to lead to murder, or personal judgement.

I'm fairly positive, you haven't studied the bibile; fairly positive you get most of what you believe-- from articles like those, or the people who write them. However, you will never find a command, directed at readers, to do such things in the Old Testament or the New. Those books, are purely traditional, and has the stench of man all over it.

Disgusting, is how i would describe this also; But this days nothing about faith in a certain God-- but it certainly exposes man.

Haven't you noticed by now? The similarities, from every religion? It's funny how they can all relate to the most popular themes: Obey and be rewarded, disobey and be punished; Man seeks truth, man finds it; God has human traits.

All of the major religions, from any culture, have elements of what i just described. Except 1-- Reformed Christianity.

Made by the hands of man, so very weak in itself, but the spirit burns strong in our congregation. (been going for 14yrs, i don't know anyone there..lol)

But the theology, strikes to painfully to be ignored. This theology, is alienation. We've been alienated from truth and our lives are riddled with confusion and pain. We suffer.

This is the only belief, that man-- is nothing! We are a people, destined to live out a purpose that is not ours. The bible, is a story about God, and his Mercy. Christ is the center of the bible.. Glory to him, for rescuing us.

This theology says, stop looking at yourself for hope! Live free. Free from fear, and free from sin's eternal grip.

How is this poisonous to society or anyone? My belief is nothing more then ,faith, in a transaction for the atonement of my sin.

We encourage research in any field, we are very diverse, very down to earth-- what gives you the right, to accuse my beliefs (arbrhamic), of being so horrible? and by what standard do you judge me?

The majority of Christians, may not be class A citizens, but they are not murders (in action).. None of them encourage hatred, to anyone. Your distain is seeping out in every post.. you are filled with indifference, and blinded by it so much-- you become what you condemn.

People are terroists, not God, and not his Word.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:06:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 12:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:

It was a reductio proving a point.

No, it was an appeal to emotion combined with an ad hominem. It didn't prove anything but that you think that your argument is inherently true without any logical basis.

No, I don't like seeing babies suffer, but I don't think that just because they suffer we should kill them. You also ignored the analysis about life is defined by suffering in the first place, so your argument justifies killing every person in order to prevent them from suffering.

So you are saying you have a morally sufficient reason for forcing babies to suffer needlessly and dying a horrible death, when you could give them relief. Thank you for proving my point.

Yes. Their rights permit them to choose whether or not they wish to live. You have no authority to kill another person simply because he is suffering.


Again that is a percentage calculation. Easy enough to do.
This is entirely nonresponsive . . .
Also Christianity has always worked to reform and eliminate evil, thus a Christian culture can be given time to reform, where as other cultures do not inherently work for their own reform, but work against it.
Yeah, that's why Christianity did the following:
1. Inquisition
2. Forced conversion of pagans
3. Witch trials and witch hunts in Europe and the US
4. Crusade
5. Sex abuse scandals and cover ups
6. Violent anti-Mormon mobs
7. Forced conversions in India
8. Destruction of Native Americans
9. Joseph Kony's army.
10. Thirty Years War

The impetus to reform society has always been secular in nature. Abolition of popery in Europe was for secular reasons because the kings were selfish. Abolition of divine absolutism was a result of the Enlightenment. Abolition of slavery was not on religious grounds, since the slaves were taught to love their condition through forced conversions and suppression of African religion. It was through a secular basis of equality. Civil rights for African Americans was achieved through secular, and not religious, means.

Yeah, right. Iran is getting nukes after a declaration 'to destroy the Jews' is REALLY hard to tell...

When was the last time Iran attacked Israel again? It's just empty talk that is meant to distract people from the authoritarianism.

A transcendent moral philosophy (Christianity) that demands and teaches reforming oneself was within the reforming cultures. Not every culture has this or has one that is strong. Not a hard calculation.

LOL, so then how you do explain the fact that most Muslims in Muslim nations do not hate the West? How do you explain cultural reform in non-Christian and pre-Christian civilizations? You are completely deluded if you think that Christianity is the only possible mechanism for reform. You pretty much ignored the empirical evidence that indoctrination is entirely ineffective anyways.
That is at least a change from the historic answers of 'there is none'.

It's not a change. There is no TESTABLE evidence.

No. Objective moral values are found within the nature of the perfect moral being. As circleness is within the nature of circle or the squareness. These are static calculable values.

You didn't respond to any of the analysis I presented about morality derived from God being subjective. Why was the slaughter of the Caananites morally permissible? Because God said so. Why were Caananite attacks on Jews impermissible? God said so.

You haven't even proven that God is a perfectly moral being, and claiming that he is perfectly moral means that there is a standard of morality that is entirely independent of God that we can use to determine whether or not he is moral. If morality stems from God's ideas, it is subjective. If he is perfectly moral in terms of objective morality, then morality is independent of God.

It is called study of God and religious belief.
https://www.google.com...

I know what Theology is. I asked you to provide an example. Surely you have examples, right?

1. As I noted with examples earlier, just because people teach something doesn't mean that the next generation follows it. This is pretty common; every society decries the "youth rebellion". Just because the culture teaches something doesn't mean that people are going to act on it.

Ignoring the actuality of present reforming agency within the culture.

There are always people who dissent in any given society or culture. Those people are the reforming agents. This has been true throughout history.

2. By attempting to destroy them, you do nothing more than add legitimacy to their claims. People want to destroy other cultures because they fear that those cultures are trying to destroy them. If you attempt to destroy them, they now can more easily mobilize their populace.

Personal perspective with little merit.

How does this have no merit? They haven't attacked and you want to kill them and thus start doing it. That makes it easier for them to mobilize their populace. Your justification is that "well, we thought they would attack even though they didn't". It's easier to mobilize people when the harms are demonstrable. It's been established through several studies that drone strikes that kill innocents cause a jump in Al Qaeda's ability to recruit, for example.

3. Just because people as a group are more likely to attack you doesn't mean that individuals in the group are more likely to attack you. You are treating individuals as inseparable from the herd and are destroying them indiscriminately.

Lol, hence the Jews wanting to enslave the other cultures to keep them from forming group hierarchy. You just validated their viewpoint.

You should use complete thoughts and explain what you are arguing. Jews want to enslave other cultures because they believe they have a divine right to. I didn't prove their point; I just proved that you are killing friends and reformers along with your foes (that didn't even attack).
4. You give them moral legitimacy when you preemptively strike because you attack them without violent provocation, meaning that retaliation is justified for self defense purposes.

Your personal opinion without warrant. If they are all dead it does not matter.

Yeah, and if everyone is dead, nobody can attack us, right?

How is this my personal opinion? It's an analysis of self-defense that is accepted through a rights-based view of morality.

You still haven't dealt with the fact that even utilitarians like Mill concede that rights are a side constraint on the hedonic calculus.

You still didn't deal with it, and your whole justification is a hedonic calculus.
5. Your arguments justify them preemptively striking you. If they think you will strike, then they should strike first. This erodes the existence of any possibility of a peace process.

Given one culture is evil and demanding the destruction of the Jew... on can only wonde
The other cultures are just as evil since they are demanding the destruction of the Palestinians and Gentiles. Not a difficult idea to grasp.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:07:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You won't be able to kill all of them before they and other nations mount a response. Are you going to kill all of those people too? LOL.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:19:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/27/2012 1:06:15 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/27/2012 12:36:53 PM, Gileandos wrote:

It was a reductio proving a point.

No, it was an appeal to emotion combined with an ad hominem. It didn't prove anything but that you think that your argument is inherently true without any logical basis.

No it was reducing your argument to show what it really is.
I cited it for that purpose:
If you stated it is ok to kill babies in a circumstance where they are suffering horribly and will die a year later, I cry "You are a baby killer! How do you know they will not fin a cure in the next year!? Even if its by sheer chance! You just want to murder babies!"

If you take the alternate position:

I cry "You are a sick freak and want to see babies suffer! You could HELP this baby but instead you WANT to see it suffer!"

It is a reductio ad absurdum. Either line of argumentation is pure misrepresentation, filled with language bias and 'cult of personality'.

Everything you argue is pointless when you do not approach it with a rational cognitive process. You are outright attacking these Jews, despite the fact that such moral warrants exist on each side of the coin.

Like Japanese imperialism, Nazism and Iran these evil cultures warrant the necessity of saving your innocents by eliminating the evil cultures innocents. Crying "Havoc!" is not the proper approach as you and the articles do.

There is a process of proper calculation concerning moral sufficiency and moral incumbency, which you are not doing.

What is the percentage chance of a cure? .00001% ? Is that enough to warrant the abomination of the suffering it is enduring? What is the level of suffering it is enduring?

Same with an evil culture.
What is the percentage change of a reformation? .00001%? How many people are advocating a change? How great is the change? What is the chance of success? Are they pacifists up against compassionless murderers? What is the international influence doing about it? What is their chances of success?

At what level of chance of success for a reformation is it worth risking the torture, mutilation and death of your children?
10%? 90%, if it were up to me and my love for my children, It would have to be highly likely a reformation is imminent and the entire world working toward that reformation.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:20:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@royal, please stop using the point about reform always coming through secular means - not only is is it demonstrably false (and we can debate that if you continue to insist otherwise), it can be deeply offensive to those who were, for instance, in the civil rights movement. Some of my family members and their friends were part of that movement (black, white, asian and hispanic) and I can tell you that they are incredibly religious and had obvious religious reasons to take part. And, yes, i do know there were secularists involved in the movement.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/27/2012 1:27:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Yeah, that's why Christianity did the following:
1. Inquisition
2. Forced conversion of pagans
3. Witch trials and witch hunts in Europe and the US
4. Crusade
5. Sex abuse scandals and cover ups
6. Violent anti-Mormon mobs
7. Forced conversions in India
8. Destruction of Native Americans
9. Joseph Kony's army.
10. Thirty Years War"

^ ^ ^ ^ The above really does not sound much like Christianity - it has the tone and symptoms, not of Christianity, but of so-called Catholicism and in particular Roman Catholicism. I personally would not confute and confound the two. In the first place, there is no such thing as a "forced conversion". In the second, most of the list reverts to a time in which a pretended infallible papa was busily confirming the fact that he is indeed fallible at best in an age of ignorance and superstition. I need to look up "Joseph Kony's Army". OK, I just did, and I'm not surprised: "Kony proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, has nurtured a cult of personality, and claims he is visited by a multinational host of 13 spirits, including a Chinese phantom." <-- yeah, well, he's just another idiot claiming to speak for God ala Jim Jones ala Ellen White ala Mohammed ala the pope.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."