Religions > Atheism > More Fred GOP Moral Superiority: "Family Values" GOP Sentaor... Has Love Child With Hooker
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2007 10:01:11 AM |
| Object: |
More Fred GOP Moral Superiority: "Family Values" GOP Sentaor... Has Love Child With Hooker |
And from a hooker who share his wife's first name to boot!
At least he's not like Bush, who sent his GF to the abortion clinic.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/52320/1071
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
19 Jul 2007 02:52:42 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:33vu935d5b70rgd8o1ih621qepdicjcir4@4ax.com:
And from a hooker who share his wife's first name to boot!
At least he's not like Bush, who sent his GF to the abortion clinic.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/19/52320/1071
At least Republicans *have* moral standards. As humans, they're not
perfect.
The reason you don't hear these complaints about Democrats is that they
don't have any standards.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
19 Jul 2007 08:06:04 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
19 Jul 2007 08:22:39 PM |
|
|
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
19 Jul 2007 08:52:52 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
20 Jul 2007 11:01:23 AM |
|
|
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:YcWdncF5CIjpiD3bnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
That's just stupid, "IAAH". The whole point of your silly "hypocrite"
accusations is that they don't follow the moral codes that they "scream
about". So they have one, they just don't follow it. Unlike you, who
doesn't even bother to have one.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
20 Jul 2007 01:19:56 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:YcWdncF5CIjpiD3bnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
That's just stupid, "IAAH". The whole point of your silly "hypocrite"
accusations is that they don't follow the moral codes that they "scream
about". So they have one, they just don't follow it. Unlike you, who
doesn't even bother to have one.
Yes, that is what being a hypocrite means. You would
know better than I how it feels.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
20 Jul 2007 04:51:24 PM |
|
|
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:p62dnbt9qNZQYT3bnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:YcWdncF5CIjpiD3bnZ2dnUVZ_ovinZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there
accusing them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
That's just stupid, "IAAH". The whole point of your silly "hypocrite"
accusations is that they don't follow the moral codes that they
"scream about". So they have one, they just don't follow it. Unlike
you, who doesn't even bother to have one.
Yes, that is what being a hypocrite means. You would
know better than I how it feels.
Yes, IAAH, I have not always lived up to my own standards.
Unlike you, who don't have to worry about things like that because you
don't have any standards worth living up to.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
19 Jul 2007 11:12:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:52 -0400, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
Standards? Having a lot of bad rules about sex are desirable
standards?
What kind of a person thinks that's a good thing?
Of course the republicans have lots and lots of 'standards'. They
just aren't moral standards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
20 Jul 2007 10:59:46 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in news:47043573.1866947609@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:52 -0400, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there
accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
Standards? Having a lot of bad rules about sex are desirable
standards?
What kind of a person thinks that's a good thing?
Of course the republicans have lots and lots of 'standards'. They
just aren't moral standards.
How would you know about moral standards?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
20 Jul 2007 08:29:06 PM |
|
|
On 20 Jul 2007 15:59:46 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in news:47043573.1866947609@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:52 -0400, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there
accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
Standards? Having a lot of bad rules about sex are desirable
standards?
What kind of a person thinks that's a good thing?
Of course the republicans have lots and lots of 'standards'. They
just aren't moral standards.
How would you know about moral standards?
I know that what the republicans preach is not what any intellegent
ethical being considers morality. They just preach what is espoused
in the bible.
Now are you telling me as an atheist that you think morality is
defined by the church? Because that's what you've said so far.
Or are you yet again trying to plant one foot on both sides of the
theological fence?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 06:58:54 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On 20 Jul 2007 15:59:46 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in news:47043573.1866947609@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:52 -0400, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there
accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
Standards? Having a lot of bad rules about sex are desirable
standards?
What kind of a person thinks that's a good thing?
Of course the republicans have lots and lots of 'standards'. They
just aren't moral standards.
How would you know about moral standards?
I know that what the republicans preach is not what any intellegent
ethical being considers morality. They just preach what is espoused
in the bible.
Are you trying to tell me that there is only one possible moral code?
Absolute Morality? YOU, Kate, are a moral absolutist?
Now are you telling me as an atheist that you think morality is
defined by the church? Because that's what you've said so far.
Kate is now officially a moral absolutist. You and Roy what's his name ought
to get along just fine.
Or are you yet again trying to plant one foot on both sides of the
theological fence?
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they *have*
standards.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Cthulhu for President - why vote for the lesser evil?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 09:41:02 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, Fred Stone <Nunya@Biznez.net>
wrote:
Kate wrote:
On 20 Jul 2007 15:59:46 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
cobalt@newscene.com (Kate ) wrote in news:47043573.1866947609@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:52 -0400, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there
accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
Standards? Having a lot of bad rules about sex are desirable
standards?
What kind of a person thinks that's a good thing?
Of course the republicans have lots and lots of 'standards'. They
just aren't moral standards.
How would you know about moral standards?
I know that what the republicans preach is not what any intellegent
ethical being considers morality. They just preach what is espoused
in the bible.
Are you trying to tell me that there is only one possible moral code?
Absolute Morality? YOU, Kate, are a moral absolutist?
That's not even close to what I just said. But I don't find it the
least bit surprising that you read into a statement anything you feel
like.
Now are you telling me as an atheist that you think morality is
defined by the church? Because that's what you've said so far.
Kate is now officially a moral absolutist. You and Roy what's his name ought
to get along just fine.
Or are you yet again trying to plant one foot on both sides of the
theological fence?
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they *have*
standards.
Then you agree with the liberals and what I said previously. They
have lots of standards. Just not ones that any ethical person would
find moral.
Now you can apologize.
And why in the world would you think democrats don't have moral
standards? They just don't have the foolish ones republicans are
always whining about.
And that you just stated you don't agree with either.
Cripes Fred. Do you ever manage to make any sense in your head? Or
is hypocracy the only thing you can manage to spit out. No wonder you
like republicans. They like that too.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 11:58:27 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:470f1925.1990774531@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, Fred Stone <Nunya@Biznez.net>
wrote:
Kate wrote:
On 20 Jul 2007 15:59:46 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
(Kate ) wrote in news:47043573.1866947609@news-
west.newscene.com:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:52:52 -0400, IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in news:1184893564.214908.50820
@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Fred Stone <fston...@earthling.com> wrote:
At least Republicans *have* moral standards.
That much was clear after the war... the way they
covered up the Foley thing for years...
Well, actually, the GOP always endorsed "sexual
sin." Just look at their leadership.
Bob Barr & Henry Hyde lead the impeachment
fight against Clinton in the House... both VERY
naughty men... both guilty of adultery. As a result
of their efforts the Republican Speaker of the
House lost his job.... as well as his replacement...
both because of their hypocricy over adultery...
both being guilty of it themselves.
So it's not like there's been a time since at least
Reagan when the GOP didn't approve of adultery.
This is just the latest example.
If they didn't have standards, you couldn't be sitting there
accusing
them of hypocrisy, "JTEM".
Oh, you idiot. Just because someone screams about
probity of a kind, that doesn't mean they *follow* it
(as we have seen with the Republican party).
Standards? Having a lot of bad rules about sex are desirable
standards?
What kind of a person thinks that's a good thing?
Of course the republicans have lots and lots of 'standards'. They
just aren't moral standards.
How would you know about moral standards?
I know that what the republicans preach is not what any intellegent
ethical being considers morality. They just preach what is espoused
in the bible.
Are you trying to tell me that there is only one possible moral code?
Absolute Morality? YOU, Kate, are a moral absolutist?
That's not even close to what I just said. But I don't find it the
least bit surprising that you read into a statement anything you feel
like.
No, Kate, that's *exactly* what you just said. "any intelligent being"
should consider morality to be just what you think it is.
Now are you telling me as an atheist that you think morality is
defined by the church? Because that's what you've said so far.
Kate is now officially a moral absolutist. You and Roy what's his name
ought to get along just fine.
Or are you yet again trying to plant one foot on both sides of the
theological fence?
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
Then you agree with the liberals and what I said previously. They
have lots of standards. Just not ones that any ethical person would
find moral.
No, Kate, that's not what I said. Their standards are quite clear, and
ethical people have followed them for centuries. I happen to know quite
a few of them personally. I don't happen to agree with them, but there
it is. The people you complain about *aren't perfect*. But that's part
of what makes humans human. We aren't perfect.
Now you can apologize.
Sorry, you got the wrong guy.
And why in the world would you think democrats don't have moral
standards?
Because you don't. It's not a matter of hypocrisy with you people, you
just don't have morals. You don't stick to any standards for anything.
Everything is some nebulous fog where right and wrong are matters of
opinion.
They just don't have the foolish ones republicans are
always whining about.
You don't have any.
And that you just stated you don't agree with either.
Cripes Fred. Do you ever manage to make any sense in your head? Or
is hypocracy the only thing you can manage to spit out. No wonder you
like republicans. They like that too.
I don't have to spin furiously to make your arguments come out to make
you look silly. You do that all by yourself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 11:20:22 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they *have*
standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an argument
in favor.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 12:39:32 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an argument
in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no way
to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve those
goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid."
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 01:22:40 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an argument
in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no way
to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve those
goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 06:17:41 PM |
|
|
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to their
heads.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 07:30:57 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to their
heads.
Blah blah sophism blah. There's your crapulent
arguments in a nutshell, Freddy, and I was correct in
what I said.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 08:37:29 PM |
|
|
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:QcKdnUYdFYzfOD_bnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
Blah blah sophism blah. There's your crapulent
arguments in a nutshell, Freddy, and I was correct in
what I said.
You haven't refuted what I said. Therefore my arguments stand.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 09:00:44 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:QcKdnUYdFYzfOD_bnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
Blah blah sophism blah. There's your crapulent
arguments in a nutshell, Freddy, and I was correct in
what I said.
You haven't refuted what I said. Therefore my arguments stand.
Oh, balls. You haven't SUPPORTED what you've said.
There's no refutation necessary for sore-loser
poison-pen whining, and that's pretty much all we see
from you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
22 Jul 2007 07:06:03 AM |
|
|
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:MKOdnSKWVbfQJz_bnZ2dnUVZ_ofinZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:QcKdnUYdFYzfOD_bnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3
@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and
wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent.
They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
Blah blah sophism blah. There's your crapulent
arguments in a nutshell, Freddy, and I was correct in
what I said.
You haven't refuted what I said. Therefore my arguments stand.
Oh, balls. You haven't SUPPORTED what you've said.
There's no refutation necessary for sore-loser
poison-pen whining, and that's pretty much all we see
from you.
Oh, the irony.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 06:20:38 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to their
heads.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 06:52:13 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:5555a3l262t2lmjn1k0en8sgkh0tsr24g6@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
Sometimes you don't have a "purely good" choice. That's why it's called
"the lesser of two evils".
Let Saddam live: evil.
Take him out: evil.
Which is worse? Judgement call.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 07:30:42 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2007 23:52:13 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974CB198F21freddybear@216.151.153.44>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:5555a3l262t2lmjn1k0en8sgkh0tsr24g6@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
Sometimes you don't have a "purely good" choice. That's why it's called
"the lesser of two evils".
Let Saddam live: evil.
Take him out: evil.
Which is worse? Judgement call.
Bush managed to screw it up in a way that made it better to leave Saddam
in power. Bush is incompetent and has no respect for the law. Every
single lawmaker, Republican or Democratic, is responsible for letting
him continue to stomp on the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 08:36:40 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:t695a3l3q150g0q03t1lhjum1sslbslbip@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:52:13 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974CB198F21freddybear@216.151.153.44>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:5555a3l262t2lmjn1k0en8sgkh0tsr24g6@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they *have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
It is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards, you have no basis on which to make decisions about
right and wrong, no way to organize your life, your goals and
your actions to achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
Sometimes you don't have a "purely good" choice. That's why it's
called "the lesser of two evils".
Let Saddam live: evil.
Take him out: evil.
Which is worse? Judgement call.
Bush managed to screw it up in a way that made it better to leave
Saddam in power. Bush is incompetent and has no respect for the law.
Every single lawmaker, Republican or Democratic, is responsible for
letting him continue to stomp on the Constitution.
If you'd like to continue the discussion of ethics after you get over
your Bush Derangement Syndrome attack, let me know.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
26 Jul 2007 03:50:44 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jul 2007 23:52:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9974CB198F21freddybear@216.151.153.44>
wrote:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:5555a3l262t2lmjn1k0en8sgkh0tsr24g6@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
Sometimes you don't have a "purely good" choice. That's why it's called
"the lesser of two evils".
Let Saddam live: evil.
Take him out: evil.
Which is worse? Judgement call.
As presented is it a meaningless question. There are many options
hidden in the two presented and there is not enough information to
decide.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
27 Jul 2007 06:41:11 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g72ia39v664p240nn917rpopavp0bu6suu@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:52:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9974CB198F21freddybear@216.151.153.44>
wrote:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:5555a3l262t2lmjn1k0en8sgkh0tsr24g6@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3
@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and
wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
Sometimes you don't have a "purely good" choice. That's why it's
called
"the lesser of two evils".
Let Saddam live: evil.
Take him out: evil.
Which is worse? Judgement call.
As presented is it a meaningless question. There are many options
hidden in the two presented and there is not enough information to
decide.
It's not an invitation to rehash the last seven years of discussion,
Matt.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Contempt of Congress is not a crime, it's a duty."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
28 Jul 2007 11:40:15 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2007 23:41:11 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns997AC93E48AABfreddybear@216.151.153.34> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:g72ia39v664p240nn917rpopavp0bu6suu@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:52:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns9974CB198F21freddybear@216.151.153.44>
wrote:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:5555a3l262t2lmjn1k0en8sgkh0tsr24g6@4ax.com:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3
@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that
they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this.
It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards,
you have no basis on which to make decisions about right and
wrong,
no way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to
achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
Sometimes you don't have a "purely good" choice. That's why it's
called
"the lesser of two evils".
Let Saddam live: evil.
Take him out: evil.
Which is worse? Judgement call.
As presented is it a meaningless question. There are many options
hidden in the two presented and there is not enough information to
decide.
It's not an invitation to rehash the last seven years of discussion,
Matt.
Then it shall remain a meaningless question.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
21 Jul 2007 09:46:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:20:38 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in <46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>
wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It is
*necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no standards, you
have no basis on which to make decisions about right and wrong, no
way to organize your life, your goals and your actions to achieve
those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil". You'll
end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to their
heads.
LOL, that you don't see the consistency isn't that it isn't there
Fred. It's that you don't have the least ability for logic.
At least they don't always choose evil, as this Republican
administration has.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: More of Yang's Moral Inferiority |
22 Jul 2007 07:05:20 AM |
|
|
(Kate ) wrote in
news:4710c482.2034643390@news-west.newscene.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 23:20:38 GMT, Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
On 21 Jul 2007 23:17:41 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9974C52A0FE1Afreddybear@216.151.153.46>:
IAAH <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in
news:wpCdnaT5Xols0z_bnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@giganews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:cfc4a39d2n6c75u77vku917ojockjhv916@4ax.com:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:58:54 -0400, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<Nunya@Biznez.net> in
<46a1f39e$0$23074$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> wrote:
[snip]
I didn't say that I *agree* with their standards, just that they
*have* standards.
An interesting point. Do you think it is better per se to have
standards than not? I don't, but I would be interested in an
argument in favor.
I find myself sorely tempted to quote the objectivists on this. It
is *necessary* to have ethical standards. If you have no
standards, you have no basis on which to make decisions about
right and wrong, no way to organize your life, your goals and your
actions to achieve those goals.
If your standards are wrong, your goals will be wrong: "evil".
You'll end up doing more harm than good.
As the present administration has done. For you to bang
on about how Democrats have no standards is pure
sophistry - what you mean is that you don't agree with
their standards.
No, I mean that they have no standards. They aren't consistent. They
can't even tell right from wrong without somebody holding a gun to
their heads.
LOL, that you don't see the consistency isn't that it isn't there
Fred. It's that you don't have the least ability for logic.
The only consistency, Katie dear, is "Bush sucks". If Bush is for it,
they're against it, whatever it is, even if they were for it before he
was elected and will be for it again after somebody else is elected,
assuming that somebody is a Democrat.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Be intolerant. Because some things are just stupid"
- Ryan Dobson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
