Pledge of Allegiance: Unconstitutional.

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shira
I didn't see your earlier post (this is a LONG thread). But I completely agree with the opinion you express in the quoted paragraph.

You are completely wrong, however, in characterizing my previous post as an ad-hominem attack. Your general argument about "God" as used in the pledge was:

(1) Here is a list of definitions of a word.
(2) The word is used.
(3) Therefore, all listed definitions apply in the usage.

This argument is utter nonsense, and I do not believe YOU believe your argument (hence the phrase, "intellectual dishonesty").

To show the absurdity of your argument, consider the meaning of the statement, "I like cookies."

According to your reasoning, that sentence means ALL of the following simultaneously:

"I enjoy eating cookies."

"I have affection for cookies."

"I enjoy receiving cookie icons on Anantech threads."

"I think browser cookies are a good thing."

And many, many others (based on the multiple meanings of "like" and "cookies").

Yet, when a normal person writes or says "I like cookies,", he/she almost always intends a SINGLE meaning. To claim that a specific usage of "I like cookies" means everything that such a sentence COULD mean is absurd.

Thus, calling your argument "intellectual dishonesty" is based on the evidence at hand (your obviously flawed argument is prima facia evidence of intellectual dishonesty). It would be an "ad hominem" attack if I instead raised the subject of your education, what you do for a living, your religion, your past history, or any of a number of issues that are not directly tied to the evidence itself.

Now, I COULD have concluded that the hopelessness of your argument was based on your being completely clueless, amazingly irrational, and/or merely having a limited understanding of language. These are all certainly possible explanations for why someone would make a claim such as yours. I think using "intellectual dishonesty" is the least of evils, since it acknowleges the existence of a functioning intellect, and is thus the LEAST negative thing I could have written.

*yawn*

I seriously suggest you study up on the history of idolatry. To use use just one example put as plainly as possible, by the standards of ancient times, the TV in everyone's home would be considered an idolatrous god. For example, were an Old Testament prophet brought to our present day, he would think that all of America worshipped the TV. That is the context and definition I used. And it is valid. Your argument that I used "intellectual dishonesty" is completely wrong. You are just completely clueless.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Medicine Bear
Sounds like another whack ruling from the 9th.

San Francisco that is all that needs to be said. Legislating Judges NO WAY!!!!

Moron, that's all that needs to be said, right? I mean when you know you know and there's no point making a case. You are a moron and it's just as simple as that.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA! You are a moron. Bigoted Blind stereotypical thinking NO WAY!!!!

I immediately clicked your profile after reading this post... I should have known you lived in SF.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA, you are from New York and obviously an idiot, as well as a rude pugnacious little twerp, right? Damn, How do I hit these brilliant calls smack on the head. Must be the flowers in my hair.

Heh. It's only really funny because from the way you post you fit the stereotype perfectly. I was also surprised because I don't usually see you sounding pissed.

OK then, I guess I should explain. EXmam's post was absurd in that it relied on pure stereotype right winged BS propaganda, crap he's been program fed which he regurgitates as though it were established fact. He is a smug little imbecile who lacks a single brain cell devoted to independent analysis and truth discovery and merely pucks into his post the glarp he has been fed all the while preening in the notion that he has aligned himself with the deepest and most well accepted truth. He is an embarrassment to the human capacity for thinking if embarrassment is your game. Hehe, but I am not embarrassed either for him or for me and it bothers me not at all to equal him in stupidity by mirroring his stupidity back to him. I thought he should be treated to the same sort of imbecilic remarks that he made to try them on for size. He would resist seeing what a fool he is but he could easily see it in me, vicariously, anyway, in the burn in his ass.

The right is big on personal responsibility so I try to oblige by telling or mirroring them to themselves. I know that their dedication to responsibility will lead them up up and away.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

 

[Vic]

:roll:

Now who's using semantics?

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Adam and Eve were not idolaters till the ate from the tree of knowledge. I think this is an allegory o the creation of duality via language, the loss by the human species of a cosmically unified consciousness like animals posses and our affliction with the curse of duality. With duality comes the capacity to abstract and separate. The world changes from a totality, I and thou are the same, to a fragmented thing of ideas and memories carried by language. I am no longer the universe, but that little piece of sh!t that got put down and told that I was evil. I am the reason everybody suffers.

And since the pain of that is more than can be born, I became what I thought you wanted. I became the good, and you are not the evil. I am aligned with the good against you. I am the idolater because I am the idol. I forgot that I am everything and that words have no meaning. The reed flute sings its plaint for its home in the reed bed.

I pledge allegiance to anything that will give me the illusion that I am joined and not all alone in my pain. I will worship anything for that. But please please don't make me remember the pain on the road back to myself where I can be the universe again.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

I don't know what your point is here but if it is to say that freedom fighter is the same as terrorist relatively, you failed to prove that. You can't just "deem" a government to be oppressive and use that justification to kill. That is immoral. The oppression must be real and of such extent as to justify armed resistance. One government may be immoral and another just.

 

[Tab]

I suggest you Vic, start actually reading the threads and ignoring the insults. You might actually learn something.

Atheism, is easily described as the disbeilef in god(s) and supernatural powers. This doesn't mean that someone may treat some things in their daily life as a god, is infact somehow religious. I am on my computer everyday for work and fun, does this mean I beileve in the computer and I am no longer an athiest?

You're definatly being intellectually dishonest, if not you're being an ass and stupid. Some definitions are ambigious and may have more than one meaning. If I call my friend gay, I am telling him in a sarcastic way that he's acting queer/werid. Not that he is infact a that he is a homosexsual.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think Adam and Eve were not idolaters till the ate from the tree of knowledge. I think this is an allegory o the creation of duality via language, the loss by the human species of a cosmically unified consciousness like animals posses and our affliction with the curse of duality. With duality comes the capacity to abstract and separate. The world changes from a totality, I and thou are the same, to a fragmented thing of ideas and memories carried by language. I am no longer the universe, but that little piece of sh!t that got put down and told that I was evil. I am the reason everybody suffers.

And since the pain of that is more than can be born, I became what I thought you wanted. I became the good, and you are not the evil. I am aligned with the good against you. I am the idolater because I am the idol. I forgot that I am everything and that words have no meaning. The reed flute sings its plaint for its home in the reed bed.

I pledge allegiance to anything that will give me the illusion that I am joined and not all alone in my pain. I will worship anything for that. But please please don't make me remember the pain on the road back to myself where I can be the universe again.

Cliff notes? I hate reading your posts, it takes too long to comprehend. I have to goto work now...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

I don't know what your point is here but if it is to say that freedom fighter is the same as terrorist relatively, you failed to prove that. You can't just "deem" a government to be oppressive and use that justification to kill. That is immoral. The oppression must be real and of such extent as to justify armed resistance. One government may be immoral and another just.

They aren't the same exactly, but you can be a freedom fighter and use the tatics of terror. ala - Car Bombings of dictators, Kidnappings of Goverment Leaders... etc...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic
:roll:

Now who's using semantics?

:roll:

Now who's dodging the argument!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

I don't know what your point is here but if it is to say that freedom fighter is the same as terrorist relatively, you failed to prove that. You can't just "deem" a government to be oppressive and use that justification to kill. That is immoral. The oppression must be real and of such extent as to justify armed resistance. One government may be immoral and another just.

They aren't the same exactly, but you can be a freedom fighter and use the tatics of terror. ala - Car Bombings of dictators, Kidnappings of Goverment Leaders... etc...

You can do anything you want if you are a relativist. I would like to pass.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Tab
I suggest you Vic, start actually reading the threads and ignoring the insults. You might actually learn something.

Atheism, is easily described as the disbeilef in god(s) and supernatural powers. This doesn't mean that someone may treat some things in their daily life as a god, is infact somehow religious. I am on my computer everyday for work and fun, does this mean I beileve in the computer and I am no longer an athiest?

You're definatly being intellectually dishonest, if not you're being an ass and stupid. Some definitions are ambigious and may have more than one meaning. If I call my friend gay, I am telling him in a sarcastic way that he's acting queer/werid. Not that he is infact a that he is a homosexsual.

You do not believe and that is your belief. You are a believer in disbelief. But actually you know as little as any other believer because you are one. That is why an agnostic is somewhat more honest in admitting he doesn't know. You are as sure you are right as any believer because you are a believer. Hope that is somewhat clear. How do you arrive at a knowledge of God or of not God? Where is your proof? What is your definition of what proof is? If you seek proof in reason, if you are reasonable you will see that you fail. You cannot prove or disprove God. But if you discover that there is something in you that is longing then go with that longing because it will lead you to heart. It is in the heart that one finds connection to God because the heart is huge. The heart is the door to Infinite Love and that passes the test for God.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

I don't know what your point is here but if it is to say that freedom fighter is the same as terrorist relatively, you failed to prove that. You can't just "deem" a government to be oppressive and use that justification to kill. That is immoral. The oppression must be real and of such extent as to justify armed resistance. One government may be immoral and another just.

Vic said you can't be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time. I pointed out that he was wrong and explained why. Certainly a terrorist is not always a freedom fighter and vince verse but they are not mutually exclusive.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

I don't know what your point is here but if it is to say that freedom fighter is the same as terrorist relatively, you failed to prove that. You can't just "deem" a government to be oppressive and use that justification to kill. That is immoral. The oppression must be real and of such extent as to justify armed resistance. One government may be immoral and another just.

and, again, both being a freedom fighter and using terrorism have nothing to do with morality.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: Vic
:roll:

Now who's using semantics?

I merely pointed out that morality has nothing to do with being a freedom fighter. You were mistaken in this regard.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Tab
I suggest you Vic, start actually reading the threads and ignoring the insults. You might actually learn something.

Atheism, is easily described as the disbeilef in god(s) and supernatural powers. This doesn't mean that someone may treat some things in their daily life as a god, is infact somehow religious. I am on my computer everyday for work and fun, does this mean I beileve in the computer and I am no longer an athiest?

You're definatly being intellectually dishonest, if not you're being an ass and stupid. Some definitions are ambigious and may have more than one meaning. If I call my friend gay, I am telling him in a sarcastic way that he's acting queer/werid. Not that he is infact a that he is a homosexsual.

You do not believe and that is your belief. You are a believer in disbelief. But actually you know as little as any other believer because you are one. That is why an agnostic is somewhat more honest in admitting he doesn't know. You are as sure you are right as any believer because you are a believer. Hope that is somewhat clear. How do you arrive at a knowledge of God or of not God? Where is your proof? What is your definition of what proof is? If you seek proof in reason, if you are reasonable you will see that you fail. You cannot prove or disprove God. But if you discover that there is something in you that is longing then go with that longing because it will lead you to heart. It is in the heart that one finds connection to God because the heart is huge. The heart is the door to Infinite Love and that passes the test for God.

Thanks for understanding and backing me up, Moonie. It seems that I stepped on some peoples' sacred cows here.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Tab
I suggest you Vic, start actually reading the threads and ignoring the insults. You might actually learn something.

Atheism, is easily described as the disbeilef in god(s) and supernatural powers. This doesn't mean that someone may treat some things in their daily life as a god, is infact somehow religious. I am on my computer everyday for work and fun, does this mean I beileve in the computer and I am no longer an athiest?

You're definatly being intellectually dishonest, if not you're being an ass and stupid. Some definitions are ambigious and may have more than one meaning. If I call my friend gay, I am telling him in a sarcastic way that he's acting queer/werid. Not that he is infact a that he is a homosexsual.

You do not believe and that is your belief. You are a believer in disbelief. But actually you know as little as any other believer because you are one. That is why an agnostic is somewhat more honest in admitting he doesn't know. You are as sure you are right as any believer because you are a believer. Hope that is somewhat clear. How do you arrive at a knowledge of God or of not God? Where is your proof? What is your definition of what proof is? If you seek proof in reason, if you are reasonable you will see that you fail. You cannot prove or disprove God. But if you discover that there is something in you that is longing then go with that longing because it will lead you to heart. It is in the heart that one finds connection to God because the heart is huge. The heart is the door to Infinite Love and that passes the test for God.

Thanks for understanding and backing me up, Moonie.

Is that what you got out ofthat post of his? I have a hard time making heads or tails out his posts myself.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

I don't know what your point is here but if it is to say that freedom fighter is the same as terrorist relatively, you failed to prove that. You can't just "deem" a government to be oppressive and use that justification to kill. That is immoral. The oppression must be real and of such extent as to justify armed resistance. One government may be immoral and another just.

Vic said you can't be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time. I pointed out that he was wrong and explained why. Certainly a terrorist is not always a freedom fighter and vince verse but they are not mutually exclusive.

I worked within the definitions and examples as given to me. I was not seeking to define the words "terrorist" and "freedom fighter," but their representations to morality based solely on the moral subjectivist statement "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And you are now intentionally confusing the issue with semantic definitions that have absolutely nothing to do with this debate regarding moralities.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Vic
I seriously suggest you study up on the history of idolatry. To use use just one example put as plainly as possible, by the standards of ancient times, the TV in everyone's home would be considered an idolatrous god. For example, were an Old Testament prophet brought to our present day, he would think that all of America worshipped the TV. That is the context and definition I used. And it is valid. Your argument that I used "intellectual dishonesty" is completely wrong. You are just completely clueless.

You are merely repeating your assertion that there are multiple definitions of the word "God". No one is disagreeing with that patently obvious point.

Your error, which you naturally have failed to address (completely expected by the way, as that's what intellectually dishonest people do when they are losing an argument), is your assertion that the meaning of the word "God" as used in the Pledge encompasses all meanings of the word "God" as defined in the dictionary. You are dead wrong.

Just think about what you are claiming: That those who inserted "under God" in the pledge intended that the meaning of that phrase include concepts of idol worship, great-looking movie stars, despotic rulers, and the pursuit of fame and fortune.

"Yawn" indeed. Your arguments are obviously the product of a sleeping mind.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Tab
I suggest you Vic, start actually reading the threads and ignoring the insults. You might actually learn something.

Atheism, is easily described as the disbeilef in god(s) and supernatural powers. This doesn't mean that someone may treat some things in their daily life as a god, is infact somehow religious. I am on my computer everyday for work and fun, does this mean I beileve in the computer and I am no longer an athiest?

You're definatly being intellectually dishonest, if not you're being an ass and stupid. Some definitions are ambigious and may have more than one meaning. If I call my friend gay, I am telling him in a sarcastic way that he's acting queer/werid. Not that he is infact a that he is a homosexsual.

You do not believe and that is your belief. You are a believer in disbelief. But actually you know as little as any other believer because you are one. That is why an agnostic is somewhat more honest in admitting he doesn't know. You are as sure you are right as any believer because you are a believer. Hope that is somewhat clear. How do you arrive at a knowledge of God or of not God? Where is your proof? What is your definition of what proof is? If you seek proof in reason, if you are reasonable you will see that you fail. You cannot prove or disprove God. But if you discover that there is something in you that is longing then go with that longing because it will lead you to heart. It is in the heart that one finds connection to God because the heart is huge. The heart is the door to Infinite Love and that passes the test for God.

Wow, I am a beilever in disbelief thanks for your pseodu-intellecutal gibberish.

You're right I don't beileve in Christianity,Judasim,Islam or any other religions. Why? Too me, the exsistance of those god is impossible. Reason and with the help of science has shown me that the presence of these gods is not possible. I can't prove a negative, but I have no reason to beileve otherwise.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Tab
I suggest you Vic, start actually reading the threads and ignoring the insults. You might actually learn something.

Atheism, is easily described as the disbeilef in god(s) and supernatural powers. This doesn't mean that someone may treat some things in their daily life as a god, is infact somehow religious. I am on my computer everyday for work and fun, does this mean I beileve in the computer and I am no longer an athiest?

You're definatly being intellectually dishonest, if not you're being an ass and stupid. Some definitions are ambigious and may have more than one meaning. If I call my friend gay, I am telling him in a sarcastic way that he's acting queer/werid. Not that he is infact a that he is a homosexsual.

You do not believe and that is your belief. You are a believer in disbelief. But actually you know as little as any other believer because you are one. That is why an agnostic is somewhat more honest in admitting he doesn't know. You are as sure you are right as any believer because you are a believer. Hope that is somewhat clear. How do you arrive at a knowledge of God or of not God? Where is your proof? What is your definition of what proof is? If you seek proof in reason, if you are reasonable you will see that you fail. You cannot prove or disprove God. But if you discover that there is something in you that is longing then go with that longing because it will lead you to heart. It is in the heart that one finds connection to God because the heart is huge. The heart is the door to Infinite Love and that passes the test for God.

Thanks for understanding and backing me up, Moonie.

Is that what you got out ofthat post of his? I have a hard time making heads or tails out his posts myself.

Basically, Moonbeam is asserting that we can't prove a negative. We can't prove that god(s) don't exsist.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: tss4

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tab
Okay, I would agree with whats presented above. Yes, objects and thoughts are only wrong when used in that context, but it depends who you are. Subjective to me means, that in a sense "One man terrorists, is another mans freedom fighter."

Labels, like "terrorist" or "freedom fighter," are defined by actual, real actions, not perceptions.
If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

That is morality. To say it is possible for a innocent-murdering terrorist to still be a "freedom fighter," and thus moral, when his actions are clearly immoral, is to debase the entire concept of morality. The means never justify the ends, means are ends unto themselves.

Another way that morality is demeaned is with those idiot Fundies and the way they think certain actions that do not concern them are immoral, i.e. what 2 persons do in the privacy of their own home. Ridiculous.

I think its worth clarifying that there is nothing in the definition of freedom righter to suggest they adhere to a moral code of conduct...

freedom fighter

NOUN:

One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Notice, they still meet the definition of a "freedom fighter" even if they use very immoral means. In other words, it is quite possible to be a "freedom fighter" and use terrorist tactics. For reference the definition of terrorist is:

ter·ror·ist
NOUN:

One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

To clarify the defintion of terrorism is:

ter·ror·ism
NOUN:

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So yes, you can use terrorism to intimidate a government deemed oppressive and thus still be a freedom fighter.

One word is a rational for war, the other word is a tactic of war.

I don't know what your point is here but if it is to say that freedom fighter is the same as terrorist relatively, you failed to prove that. You can't just "deem" a government to be oppressive and use that justification to kill. That is immoral. The oppression must be real and of such extent as to justify armed resistance. One government may be immoral and another just.

Vic said you can't be a terrorist and a freedom fighter at the same time. I pointed out that he was wrong and explained why. Certainly a terrorist is not always a freedom fighter and vince verse but they are not mutually exclusive.

I worked within the definitions and examples as given to me. I was not seeking to define the words "terrorist" and "freedom fighter," but their representations to morality based solely on the moral subjectivist statement "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." And you are now intentionally confusing the issue with semantic definitions that have absolutely nothing to do with this debate regarding moralities.

Yet, you did.

If you're car-bombing (or otherwise murdering) innocents, you're a terrorist. If you're fighting a just war against soldiers, you're a freedom fighter.

Who decides who's innocent exactly? Why should care about my dormmates down the hall? Whats stopping me from killing them when they're being assholes by playing loud music at 1:00AM besides the local police?

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You do not believe and that is your belief. You are a believer in disbelief.

No. There is disbelief and denial. We understand your claim of a God, but there is no evidence given, thus we have a lack of belief. Let me give you an example. Picture a baby. A baby has no idea what God is. That is not denial of a God, it is a lack of belief. Now apply it to adults and instead of not having an idea of what God is, having lack of evidence to even believe.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But actually you know as little as any other believer because you are one. That is why an agnostic is somewhat more honest in admitting he doesn't know.

There is Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism. One asserts that there is no evidence given thus the reason for a lack of belief. The other asserts that there is no God.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
How do you arrive at a knowledge of God or of not God? Where is your proof?

Lol. How are we supposed to disprove something that doesn't have proof to begin with? Its called burdon of proof. It rests on the person who made the claim.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What is your definition of what proof is?

Scientific evidence is what I tend to call proof. Its the best thing we have to proof.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you seek proof in reason, if you are reasonable you will see that you fail. You cannot prove or disprove God.

Thus, its irrational to have a belief that cannot be proved or disproved.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
But if you discover that there is something in you that is longing then go with that longing because it will lead you to heart. It is in the heart that one finds connection to God because the heart is huge. The heart is the door to Infinite Love and that passes the test for God.

I don't know how to respond to this. I'll just say that its the brain that does the thinking. The heart pumps blood. So if anything, switch heart to brain and it'll look a little less irrational.

Not sure if your post was sarcastic or anything so sry if it was. Oh, and this was a little off topic anyway.

 

[engineereeyore]

First, a little off topic. If you don't believe in something simply because there is no proof that it exist, do you believe in love? Most of us believe in love, or that it exist, but can anyone prove it, or prove that they love someone? It's something inside of you. You can "show it", but you can't "prove it."

Back on topic, personally, I don't care if they take out the pledge all together. Let's be honest, most of us never said it after about the 6th grade anyway. The whole basis of putting "under God" into the pledge seemed to be to present ourselves as superior to the "non-religious" people/countries of the world. However, the Bible itself say not to judge, so it seemed a pretty contradictory thing to do in the first place. So I vote we throw it out.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tab
Who decides who's innocent exactly? Why should care about my dormmates down the hall? Whats stopping me from killing them when they're being assholes by playing loud music at 1:00AM besides the local police?

No one decides, Tab. No one. Reality just IS. As usual, it is the subjectivists and intrinsics who deny reality and thus are the least moral. The former thinks that only force defines morality (as your statement quoted here demonstrated) and the latter thinks that mysticism defines reality. Both are flat-out wrong. Morality IS. But I'm done with this conversation. Sometimes I feel that explaining even the most basic abstract concepts here is like explaining the colors of a rainbow to a man blind since birth.

To SleepWalkerX, here's my response to your argument to Moonbeam, a scene from the movie Contact.

ELLIE: Hey, I've got one for you.
PALMER: What have you got?
ELLIE: Occam's Razor, you ever heard of it?
PALMER: Hackem's Razor, sounds like some slasher movie.
ELLIE: No, Occam's Razor, it's a basic scientific principle. And it says, all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
PALMER: Makes sense to me.
ELLIE: Alright. So what's more likely (Joss puts his jacket around Ellie), thank you...
PALMER: You're welcome.
ELLIE: ...An all powerful and mysterious God created the Universe, and then decided not to give any proof of his existence, or that he simply doesn't exist at all, and that we created him so that we didn't have to feel so small and alone?
PALMER: I don't know. I couldn't imagine living in a world where God didn't exist. I wouldn't want to.
ELLIE: How do you know your not deluding yourself? As for me, I'd need proof.
PALMER: Proof... Did you love your father?
ELLIE: Huh?
PALMER: Your Dad, did you love him?
ELLIE: Yes, very much.
PALMER: Prove it.