Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Perception, Reality and Truth
Certain aspects of more 'liberal thinking' are, in my mind, quite unpatriotic--chief among those is the behavior we recently saw in Berkley,
That's called being annoying NOT un-patriotic being un-patriotic is bombing a recruitment office in New York. I think that's the point he was trying to make...just because you don't understand something (e.g. blocking access to a Recruitment Center) doesn't make it un-patriotic. Protest takes many different faces, and there are many different approaches to exercising this fundamental right.
Other issues involve Energy Independence--most alternative technology won't be commercially viable for at least a decade--
What does that have to do with being un-patriotic, your logic at this point is questionable...
and Health Care--Hillary is telling me that if I refuse to particpate in HER plan, she'll garnish my wages
So now you're saying that you wouldn't advocate nation-wide participation in healthcare? That's unpatriotic...and selfish...we are capitalists, but we aren't heartless. I dont agree with many of Hillary's policies but if she represented what the majority of American's wanted then I would conform, that's being patriotic. I don't believe in income taxes, is it unpatriotic that I pay them?
circumstances' others are not. So yes, I'm going say that, when you are participating in certain behavior, you are acting in an immoral manner,
Your point here is poorly stated. By affirming that someone is in fact acting in an "immoral manner" you've negated your entire argument.
There are numerous other items too.
Probably not.
When my mother grew up in the 1930's it was all immoral.
I think a better stated argument is: What is morality? I think a lot of morality is dictated by religion, and there in lies the struggle with atheism...I suppose their argument is that "Religion" comes from the minds of men...which, in many cases, it does. Also, Can a heterogeneous cultural structure ever embrace the same basic morality? Probably not.
RE: Perception, Reality and Truth
Let's see..do any atheists here agree with abortion? pre-marital sex? drunkeness? Gay-Marriage? While certain of these are 'illegal in certain circumstances' others are not. So yes, I'm going say that, when you are participating in certain behaviour, you are acting in an immoral manner, and continuing in the behaviour makes one immoral--by the moral compass I believe in.
I was with the rest of your response until this. I could very easily substitute the "atheists" with progressive Christian, Sunday Christian ... or just about everyone I know (who happen to associate themselves with Christianity).
I suppose an interesting question then is who is worse? An atheist that adheres to nothing except what they personally think is right or a Christian that does what they personally think is right (in this - behavior identical to the atheist) despite having stances against dogma? In that case, the Christian is the worse person. It would seem to me that there are more people of faith that think the way you describe atheists than you want to believe. And I think more atheists inherently act the way you would expect a Christian to than you would like to believe as well.
RSS
RE: Perception, Reality and Truth
What disgusted me, however, was the remainder of the cadets found him guilty because they "felt he was guilty" and from his sleazy demeanor.
What you fail to realize is that most juries are swayed not by facts, but by emotion. Juries are made of people who are not formally trained in law, but rather they are simply 'ordinary' people. Preponderance of the Evidence is a fantasy; otherwise innocent people who fail to have the 'high powered' lawyers wouldn't go to jail. Lawyers (and I have several as friends0 are taught how to play on the emotions of juries; it's part of their bag of tricks. In truth, it is not evidence, but emotion that rules the heads of most juries. Much worse is the fact that, because of the preponderance of 'CSI' shows, juries have been asking more and more for forensic evidence of a type that only exists in the realm of TV Fantasy. Without said evidence, they often acquit--even though other evidence says otherwise.
I am not saying that people are too 'stupid' to understand, but rather that the majority of people are ruled by emotion and not fact.
You see it here on OmniNerd when a liberal is immediately dismissed as unpatriotic and stupid.
Certain aspects of more 'liberal thinking' are, in my mind, quite unpatriotic--chief among those is the behaviour we recently saw in Berkley, where citizens were physically BARRED from entering a recruiters office by protesters. Other issues involve Energy Independence--most alternative technology won't be commercially viable for at least a decade--and it will take a decade beyond that before it pervades every aspect of society; and Health Care--Hillary is telling me that if I refuse to particpate in HER plan, she'll garnish my wages, even if I already pay into my own plan. There are numerous other items too.
You see it here when atheists are told they are the most immoral of the bunch just because.
Let's see..do any atheists here agree with abortion? pre-marital sex? drunkeness? Gay-Marriage? While certain of these are 'illegal in certain circumstances' others are not. So yes, I'm going say that, when you are participating in certain behaviour, you are acting in an immoral manner, and continuing in the behaviour makes one immoral--by the moral compass I believe in. When my mother grew up in the 1930's it was all immoral. When my brother grew up in the 1950's it was all still immoral. In the 1970's when I grew up only a couple of things on the list were still immoral, now only one is considered 'bad'..not immoral, but 'bad'. I've already put forth in a previous posting that there are no grey areas, so I'm not going there. Suffice to say that immorality is immorality; it is not re-defined as we age as a culture.
View Full Discussion