OT: The End Justifies the Means
Paul Popinjay
train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture and
murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abZjVj0mu0&feature=related
I'll tell you how they do it. They twist and pervert reality, and convince
themselves and their followers that there is no absolute right or wrong,
that the end justifies the means. Whether it be Pol Pot and his merry band
of cut throats, or Hitler's poison gas administerers. It is that age old
Machiavellian concept that they adopt, the ends justifies the means. And
that is what is at the heart of the forces on the Left. Here, on this very
newsgroup, there are many "liberals" who not only dismiss any notion of
moral absolutism, but some who actually go as far as excusing communist
atrocities.
Yes, I have started a new thread, but the conversation is continued. I've
taken a lot of crap from people like Jerry Sturdivant, K9Way/Doggystyle,
Chris Robin, and now even IHeartWuzzy. I will stand by my statement, that
there is only two ways of looking at morality. One, is that concepts of
right and wrong are eternal, absolute, and standards set by our Creator. If
you reject that premise, then there is only one other way of looking at it,
and that is that Man sets standards of right and wrong. Jerry Sturdivant
even thinks that Man's "civil tenants" pre-dates establishment of religion.
I doubt that.
But if the belief of the Left is true, then there is absolutely no reason
that one man's belief system should rank over another man's belief system.
And not even ONE of you people on this newsgroup has stepped up and
explained why one man's moral code should rank over another man's moral
code. That's because you cannot. No one here can. No one can explain why
Pol Pot's moral code and belief system should not rank over your own moral
code and belief system. It is not enough to be nice. Just being nice
doesn't cut it. Right and wrong is eternal, and it is determined by God,
even if you do not believe in God.
There, I've said my piece. I don't expect any argument, because you cannot
argue what I have said. Many of you think this is a joke, or a game.
That's because you live in the comforts of modern day America, and do not
understand history. You have no clue, but are going to be in for a rude
awakening. God help you.
-Paul Popinjay
Clave
news:h846fk$dkq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
<...>
> Yes, I have started a new thread, but the conversation is continued. I've
> taken a lot of crap from people like Jerry Sturdivant, K9Way/Doggystyle,
> Chris Robin, and now even IHeartWuzzy. I will stand by my statement, that
> there is only two ways of looking at morality. One, is that concepts of
> right and wrong are eternal, absolute, and standards set by our Creator...
You read that in a book, right?
Jim
hanks
As usual Sturdivant is right and you are wrong!!!
According to your(errr Ramashiva's) schedule you are posting from your
road trip.
To answer your question in re "how they do it ?" its the same way they
do it in Africa.
Get your head out of yor ass and enjoy New Orleans with err Ramashiva.
your homie
hanks
Paul Popinjay
news:4918a2d3-0222-423b...@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
As usual Sturdivant is right and you are wrong!!!
According to your(errr Ramashiva's) schedule you are posting from your
road trip.
To answer your question in re "how they do it ?" its the same way they
do it in Africa.
Get your head out of yor ass and enjoy New Orleans with err Ramashiva.
your homie
hanks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Hanks, seriously, you don't have to try to make a joke out of eveything
I post. Sometimes I am quite serious about what I say. All I want to do is
post it. You could save your comments for times when I am obviously joking
around, or when I am posting about poker or Gardena or something we have in
common. There are several people on this newsgroup that have had long and
philosophical discussions with me over the years. They know who they are,
and I suspect many will read what I have to say but not address my points in
a futile attempt to counter me. In this instance, I doubt seriously if
anyone can present a credible argument. Because there is none. And I am
quite satisfied to smugly stand back to a sound of silence knowing that I
have them stumped.
-Paul Popinjay
hanks
> "hanks" <adriennebuus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4918a2d3-0222-423b...@l35g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> As usual Sturdivant is right and you are wrong!!!
> According to your(errr Ramashiva's) schedule you are posting from your
> road trip.
> To answer your question in re "how they do it ?" its the same way they
> do it in Africa.
> Get your head out of yor ass and enjoy New Orleans with err Ramashiva.
> your homie
> hanks
>
>
> Hey Hanks, seriously, you don't have to try to make a joke out of eveything
> I post. Sometimes I am quite serious about what I say. All I want to do is
> post it. You could save your comments for times when I am obviously joking
> around, or when I am posting about poker or Gardena or something we have in
> common. There are several people on this newsgroup that have had long and
> philosophical discussions with me over the years. They know who they are,
> and I suspect many will read what I have to say but not address my points in
> a futile attempt to counter me. In this instance, I doubt seriously if
> anyone can present a credible argument. Because there is none. And I am
> quite satisfied to smugly stand back to a sound of silence knowing that I
> have them stumped.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
Oh, OK Ramashiva!! If there is no God there is no morality? Is that
what you are contending?
What about all the wars waged in the name of God?
Fuck God and fuck religion, organized religion has done FAR MORE harm
than good in the name of GOD.
This opinion is from a Catholic school kid who spent 8yrs with the
nuns, 4 years with the Jesuists and 4 yrs Jesuit University.
hanks
an indifferent agnostic
risky biz
I will stand by my statement, that
> there is only two ways of looking at morality. One, is that concepts of
> right and wrong are eternal, absolute, and standards set by our Creator.
Like stoning to death adulterers?
____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
hanks
That is ordered by religion!!!
hanks
intang...@yahoo.com
exist ...civilly.
They aren't implanted in us by a magic ghost in the sky.
What we call morality results from eons of social evolution--a trial
and error process of how best to maintain order and stability in a
society.
Murder isn't illegal because it offends "God."
It's illegal because society--as we prefer it to exist--would break
down if we allowed it. It's illegal for the same reason that
shoplifting is illegal.
Other civilizations in other times were perfectly fine with
sacrificing humans. In fact they believed their gods demanded it.
That was THEIR morality and we have no right to question it. "God"
certainly didn't.
da pickle no spam
roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Paul Popinjay
news:32a35169-f8d9-4719...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Murder isn't illegal because it offends "God."
>
> It's illegal because society--as we prefer it to exist--would break
> down if we allowed it.
Murder was rampant in the example I listed. Didn't you notice that I listed
Pol Pot and the Cambodian genocide as an example? Their bloody tyranny
thrived, until they were overpowered by another tyranny, Communist Vietnam.
In Communist China, Mao and his Red Guard murdered millions and millions
over decades. That regime has never been toppled yet. What do you mean
"society breaks down"? China is the modern day Sparta. Murder is state
sanctioned. They execute an enormous amount of people for mere
misdemeanor-type offences. Is their society about to break down? It does
not appear so. Mao said power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The ruling
elite in China has all the power, and all of the guns. Murder is sanctioned
there as the rulers see fit. That is their moral code. If you disagree
with their murdering 60,000,000 people during the Cultural Revolution, you
cannot condemn that tragedy without being a hypocrite yourself, as your
belief system is no better than theirs if there are no absolutes. The ends
justifies the means, in your world. Because, Orange, you live in a Leftist
world. You seek to bring down all religion as the opiate of the people, and
turn all tradition upsidedown. You are an Orwellian. A Machievellian. I
suggest you pray to God Almighty that you do not become a Robespierrian.
-Paul Popinjay
eleaticus
"Paul Popinjay" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:h846fk$dkq$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture
and
> murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abZjVj0mu0&feature=related
>
>
> I'll tell you how they do it. They twist and pervert reality, and
convince
> themselves and their followers that there is no absolute right or wrong,
> that the end justifies the means. Whether it be Pol Pot and his merry
band
> of cut throats, or Hitler's poison gas administerers. It is that age old
> Machiavellian concept that they adopt, the ends justifies the means. And
> that is what is at the heart of the forces on the Left. Here, on this
very
> newsgroup, there are many "liberals" who not only dismiss any notion of
> moral absolutism, but some who actually go as far as excusing communist
> atrocities.
When you go forthe bullshit you head right for diarrhea, but isn't it
supposed you to come out of your ass, not your mouth?
Oh. Yeah.
I get it. Your ass is where your whole head is, wk, is this avatar.
Alim Nassor
> Fuck God and fuck religion, organized religion has done FAR MORE harm
> than good in the name of GOD.
> This opinion is from a Catholic school kid who spent 8yrs with the
> nuns, 4 years with the Jesuists and 4 yrs Jesuit University.
> hanks
That doesn't sound very indifferent to me. Sounds like maybe you
resent the fact you were too ugly as a kid to get to play hide the
salami with Father Guido.
Paul Popinjay
news:h84m1j$df6$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>
> When you go forthe bullshit you head right for diarrhea, but isn't it
> supposed you to come out of your ass, not your mouth?
>
> Oh. Yeah.
>
> I get it. Your ass is where your whole head is, wk, is this avatar.
>
Seriously, Oren, take a look at what you just pressed the send button on.
How do you think it makes you look to the readers of this newsgroup and the
math/science groups that you post on? Do you think that they fail to notice
your difficulty in functionally formatting and properly punctuating?
-Paul Popinjay
Adam
> <intangible...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Murder is a legal term, state sanctioned killings are rarely murder.
In any event you are confusing morality with legality, the two are
only somewhat connected, what may be legal is not nessecarily moral in
the eyes of the culture concerned. The more autocratic the society the
wider that gap is likely to be.
Paul Popinjay
Murder is a legal term, state sanctioned killings are rarely murder.
In any event you are confusing morality with legality, the two are
only somewhat connected, what may be legal is not nessecarily moral in
the eyes of the culture concerned. The more autocratic the society the
wider that gap is likely to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that is my whole point. I am not confusing legality with morality.
If there is a God, it is His rules that make the distinction. If there is
no God, then it is Man's rules. And as such is the case, I question your
statement that state-sanctioned killings are rarely murder. Perhaps you are
unaware of the tens of millions of people's lives that have been
extinguished by the international communist movement in the past hundred
years, under state sanction, for "crimes" such as owning a plot of farm
land. Sounds like you are a young man who has not left his house often,
fortunate to live in a relatively civilized, although decadent, country.
-Paul Popinjay
intang...@yahoo.com
The ruling
> elite in China has all the power, and all of the guns. Murder is sanctioned
> there as the rulers see fit. That is their moral code.
No.
That is the code of those who hunger for power. There's no morality
in the calculus
Your fatal error, Paulie, is that you believe the crimes of a tiny
handful of power elite reflect the morality of the society they rule.
But the only way they can hold power is by violating that morality.
Pepe Papon
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>How do they do it? How do they murder 2 million Cambodians? How do they
>train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture and
>murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
By convincing them that God wants it.
--
~ Seth Jackson
MySpace URL - http://www.myspace.com/sethjacksonsong
Songwriting and Music Business Info: http://www.sethjackson.net
ChrisRobin
> I will stand by my statement, that
> there is only two ways of looking at morality. One, is that concepts of
> right and wrong are eternal, absolute, and standards set by our Creator. If
> you reject that premise, then there is only one other way of looking at it,
> and that is that Man sets standards of right and wrong.
Of course Man sets standards of right and wrong. Morality is nothing more
than a human construct, by definition.
Do they offer Philosophy 101 at your local community college?
-----�
Paul Popinjay
news:9debd978-37f6-4e6c...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> Your fatal error, Paulie, is that you believe the crimes of a tiny
> handful of power elite reflect the morality of the society they rule.
I'm not talking about the subjects they rule. I'm talking about the very
philopsophy that propels collectivism. You yourself admit that you do not
believe in moral absolutes, so it must be situational. If that's the case,
then it can change at whim. Where is your moral compass when it comes to
the majority taking the fruits of the minority's labor? Clearly you believe
in that, despite the fact that it is not yours to take. You do not believe
in individual property rights. Isn't that so, Orange? C'mon, admit it, you
do not believe in the sanctity of individual property rights. By God's
standards, that is wrong, morally. Yet with the backing of mob rule, you
can justify it. This is what I am saying. People of your ilk are guided by
Machiavellian principle. In other words, you have no principle.
-PP
Paul Popinjay
news:ss8hn6x...@recgroups.com...
>
> Of course Man sets standards of right and wrong. Morality is nothing more
> than a human construct, by definition.
>
Then you are disagreeing with Jerry Sturdivant, OrangeSFO, and Peg Smith.
They are saying that society, out of self preservation, creates a set of
moral standards as it evolves that includes defining and banning murder.
But if morality is merely a human construct as you say, then there is
nothing immoral about some men being perfectly ok with murder. In other
words, where do Jerry Sturdivant, OrangeSFO, and Peg Smith get off? Like
their views on morality are the only valid ones? Pretty arrogant of them!
> Do they offer Philosophy 101 at your local community college?
>
How should I know? I've never been there.
-PP
Paul Popinjay
news:f2sba5dnoch46f7t0...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:50:39 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>How do they do it? How do they murder 2 million Cambodians? How do they
>>train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture
>>and murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
>
> By convincing them that God wants it.
God played no role in the Khmer Rouge's playbook. Where did you pull that
little "fact" from? I can take a pretty good guess.
Please explain yourself, Pepe. An explanation of your comment is in order,
Pepe.
-PP
intang...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> I'm not talking about the subjects they rule. I'm talking about the very
> philopsophy that propels collectivism.
There's nothing morally wrong with collectivism. It worked just fine
for hunter/gather civilizations -- it's when a small handful get the
idea that they are no longer just one of the proletariat, assume
power, then exploit everyone at the bottom of the heap in order to
hold power, that it all goes morally wrong.
The same goes for capitalism, but capitalists are just more honest
about the screwing they're doing.
And, no, morality is not situational. It's evolutionary.
Hypothetical: The day might come when this planet is so
overpopulated, that "thinning the herd" will be essential to
humanity's survival. Do we refuse to do it because it's immoral and
accept our extinction...?
And morality evolves once again.
(Then again, morality might indeed be situational.... A Uruguayan
rugby team crashes in the Andes. With no hope of rescue and
starvation certain, they begin to eat their dead. Does our "moral"
taboo against cannibalism hold here. Or must exceptions be made?)
Paulie...Religion IS a crutch. It's comforting certainty for people
who cannot bear to acknowledge a chaotic, unsympathetic universe.
ChrisRobin
> > Of course Man sets standards of right and wrong. Morality is nothing more
> > than a human construct, by definition.
>
> Then you are disagreeing with Jerry Sturdivant, OrangeSFO, and Peg Smith.
> They are saying that society, out of self preservation, creates a set of
> moral standards as it evolves that includes defining and banning murder.
> But if morality is merely a human construct as you say, then there is
> nothing immoral about some men being perfectly ok with murder. In other
> words, where do Jerry Sturdivant, OrangeSFO, and Peg Smith get off? Like
> their views on morality are the only valid ones? Pretty arrogant of them!
They are also correct, they're merely arguing the broader sociological
angle. You, on the other hand, aren't arguing about morality, but instead
about your interpretation of it � ironically, viewed through the prism of
another human construct, religion. Which explains your obvious confusion.
> > Do they offer Philosophy 101 at your local community college?
> How should I know? I've never been there.
No kidding?
----�
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
Paul Popinjay
news:67e850e1-28fd-4a23...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> There's nothing morally wrong with collectivism.
Just to be clear, haven't we already established that you do not even work?
Orange, when you get a job, or own some land, then get back to us about how
it is ok for the government to take the fruits of your labor. Until then,
you are hardly qualified to comment on collectivism. If you want to
elaborate on the benefits of panhandling, then please start another thread.
> And, no, morality is not situational. It's evolutionary.
As I said, you are a proud Orwellian, telling us right here that day is
night, night is day.
> Hypothetical: The day might come when this planet is so
> overpopulated, that "thinning the herd" will be essential to
> humanity's survival. Do we refuse to do it because it's immoral and
> accept our extinction...?
No, we go right ahead with it. Just make sure that you volunteer to be the
part of the herd that gets thinned. Count me out, though.
> Paulie...Religion IS a crutch. It's comforting certainty for people
> who cannot bear to acknowledge a chaotic, unsympathetic universe.
I don't think I was arguing about religion, or even whether God exists. Was
I arguing about religion? You and Jerry Sturdivant are the ones who keep
bringing up religion. Why do you think I would want to argue with your ilk
about religion? I would not. I merely point out that there are only two
ways of looking at where morality comes from. From God, or from Man. You
have not countered my point. You have only said that you believe in the
latter. But you have not told us why one man's moral system deserves to be
considered better than any other man's. That is my whole point. You
cannot. No one here can. No one here will. But I must say that there is
one thing you have gone so far in admitting that none of the other Leftists
on this group have done. You stated that some day it may be necessary to
"thin the herd". I thank you for your honesty. Pol Pot Junior.
-PP
Paul Popinjay
>
> They are also correct, they're merely arguing the broader sociological
> angle. You, on the other hand, aren't arguing about morality, but instead
> about your interpretation of it - ironically, viewed through the prism of
> another human construct, religion. Which explains your obvious confusion.
>
I'm not confused about anything. It is my thread. One would think that I
know what I am posting, in my own thread. As with others, you are bringing
up religion. I am not bringing up religion at all. My premise is simple,
and correct. Either morality is absolute, or it is situational. If it is
the latter, then it actually does not exist.
>> > Do they offer Philosophy 101 at your local community college?
>
>> How should I know? I've never been there.
>
> No kidding?
>
We're all so lucky to have you smart college types, Chris. Going back to my
original post, and my bringing up the Cambodian Genocide, you do know,
Chris, who were the first ones to be exterminated, right Chris? The ends
still justify the means, Chris?
-PP
Pepe Papon
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:f2sba5dnoch46f7t0...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 16:50:39 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
>> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>How do they do it? How do they murder 2 million Cambodians? How do they
>>>train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture
>>>and murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
>
>>
>> By convincing them that God wants it.
>
>
>God played no role in the Khmer Rouge's playbook. Where did you pull that
>little "fact" from? I can take a pretty good guess.
>
>Please explain yourself, Pepe. An explanation of your comment is in order,
>Pepe.
OK, I admit to the inappropriate use of snark to try and make a point.
The Khmer Rouge was a poor example, but there's been plenty of war and
death in the name of God throughout history.
Pepe Papon
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I'm not confused about anything. It is my thread. One would think that I
>know what I am posting, in my own thread. As with others, you are bringing
>up religion. I am not bringing up religion at all. My premise is simple,
>and correct. Either morality is absolute, or it is situational. If it is
>the latter, then it actually does not exist.
It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
intang...@yahoo.com
> Just to be clear, haven't we already established that you do not even work?
I work as little as possible. I let my employees do the real labor.
> get back to us about how
> it is ok for the government to take the fruits of your labor.
Paulie, do you pay taxes? Do you deny the necessity of turning over
SOME of the fruits of your labor to pay for the infrastructure of our
economy and the defense of the nation?
> I don't think I was arguing about religion, or even whether God exists. Was
> I arguing about religion?
You were insisting that human morality is bestowed upon us by an
unseen power which you call "God." Sounds like religion to me.
> But you have not told us why one man's moral system deserves to be
> considered better than any other man's.
I've never suggested such. "Moral systems" don't belong to
individuals. They evolve societally. You might say they are
"collective."
But I must say that there is
> one thing you have gone so far in admitting that none of the other Leftists
> on this group have done. You stated that some day it may be necessary to
> "thin the herd".
No I didn't. I used a hypothetical situation to illustrate my idea
that morality evolves to suit the needs of civilization.
Paulie, you over-read everything. You have a terrible habit of
ascribing words and thoughts to people which they simply didn't speak.
Try to work on that.
Mike Franklin
wrote:
> ...
> Well, that is my whole point. I am not confusing legality with morality.
> If there is a God, it is His rules that make the distinction. If there is
>
> -Paul Popinjay
If God told you to kill your child, would you?
If you don't have any children, assume for the sake of the question
that you do.
Mike
Paul Popinjay
news:94f3962b-2118-40e2-9abb-
> If God told you to kill your child, would you?
No, I would not. What kind of a question is that? Certainly not relevent
to this discussion.
Besides, I don't know why God would ask me to do that when there are already
thousands of Americans murdering their children every year through abortion.
There's plenty of dead babies to go around.
-PP
intang...@yahoo.com
>
> Besides, I don't know why God would ask me to do that...
He might. He's done it. I read it in the Bible.
K9way
> How do they do it? How do they murder 2 million Cambodians? How do they
> train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture and
> murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abZjVj0mu0&feature=related
>
>
> I'll tell you how they do it. They twist and pervert reality, and convince
> themselves and their followers that there is no absolute right or wrong,
SO THEY WATCH FOX ?
> that the end justifies the means. Whether it be Pol Pot and his merry band
> of cut throats, or Hitler's poison gas administerers. It is that age old
> Machiavellian concept that they adopt, the ends justifies the means. And
> that is what is at the heart of the forces on the Left. Here, on this very
> newsgroup, there are many "liberals" who not only dismiss any notion of
> moral absolutism, but some who actually go as far as excusing communist
> atrocities.
>
> Yes, I have started a new thread, but the conversation is continued. I've
> taken a lot of crap from people like Jerry Sturdivant, K9Way/Doggystyle,
> Chris Robin, and now even IHeartWuzzy. I will stand by my statement, that
> there is only two ways of looking at morality. One, is that concepts of
> right and wrong are eternal, absolute, and standards set by our Creator. If
> you reject that premise, then there is only one other way of looking at it,
> and that is that Man sets standards of right and wrong. Jerry Sturdivant
> even thinks that Man's "civil tenants" pre-dates establishment of religion.
> I doubt that.
>
> But if the belief of the Left is true, then there is absolutely no reason
> that one man's belief system should rank over another man's belief system.
> And not even ONE of you people on this newsgroup has stepped up and
> explained why one man's moral code should rank over another man's moral
> code. That's because you cannot. No one here can. No one can explain why
> Pol Pot's moral code and belief system should not rank over your own moral
> code and belief system. It is not enough to be nice. Just being nice
> doesn't cut it. Right and wrong is eternal, and it is determined by God,
> even if you do not believe in God.
>
> There, I've said my piece. I don't expect any argument, because you cannot
> argue what I have said. Many of you think this is a joke, or a game.
> That's because you live in the comforts of modern day America, and do not
> understand history. You have no clue, but are going to be in for a rude
> awakening. God help you.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!!
-------�
K9way
> How do they do it? How do they murder 2 million Cambodians? How do they
> train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture and
> murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abZjVj0mu0&feature=related
>
>
> I'll tell you how they do it. They twist and pervert reality, and convince
> themselves and their followers that there is no absolute right or wrong,
> that the end justifies the means. Whether it be Pol Pot and his merry band
> of cut throats, or Hitler's poison gas administerers. It is that age old
> Machiavellian concept that they adopt, the ends justifies the means. And
> that is what is at the heart of the forces on the Left. Here, on this very
> newsgroup, there are many "liberals" who not only dismiss any notion of
> moral absolutism, but some who actually go as far as excusing communist
> atrocities.
>
> Yes, I have started a new thread, but the conversation is continued. I've
> taken a lot of crap from people like Jerry Sturdivant, K9Way/Doggystyle,
> Chris Robin, and now even IHeartWuzzy. I will stand by my statement, that
> there is only two ways of looking at morality. One, is that concepts of
> right and wrong are eternal, absolute, and standards set by our Creator.
AND THE OTHER IS NOT INSANE
If
> you reject that premise, then there is only one other way of looking at it,
> and that is that Man sets standards of right and wrong. Jerry Sturdivant
> even thinks that Man's "civil tenants" pre-dates establishment of religion.
> I doubt that.
>
> But if the belief of the Left is true, then there is absolutely no reason
> that one man's belief system should rank over another man's belief system.
> And not even ONE of you people on this newsgroup has stepped up and
> explained why one man's moral code should rank over another man's moral
> code. That's because you cannot. No one here can. No one can explain why
> Pol Pot's moral code and belief system should not rank over your own moral
> code and belief system. It is not enough to be nice. Just being nice
> doesn't cut it. Right and wrong is eternal, and it is determined by God,
> even if you do not believe in God.
>
> There, I've said my piece. I don't expect any argument, because you cannot
> argue what I have said. Many of you think this is a joke, or a game.
> That's because you live in the comforts of modern day America, and do not
> understand history. You have no clue, but are going to be in for a rude
> awakening. God help you.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!!
-------�
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
K9way
> How do they do it? How do they murder 2 million Cambodians? How do they
> train 14 years olds to pick up a gun and join in the systematic torture and
> murder of 2,000,000 of their own people?
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8abZjVj0mu0&feature=related
>
>
> I'll tell you how they do it. They twist and pervert reality, and convince
> themselves and their followers that there is no absolute right or wrong,
> that the end justifies the means. Whether it be Pol Pot and his merry band
> of cut throats, or Hitler's poison gas administerers. It is that age old
> Machiavellian concept that they adopt, the ends justifies the means. And
> that is what is at the heart of the forces on the Left. Here, on this very
> newsgroup, there are many "liberals" who not only dismiss any notion of
> moral absolutism, but some who actually go as far as excusing communist
> atrocities.
>
> Yes, I have started a new thread, but the conversation is continued. I've
> taken a lot of crap from people like Jerry Sturdivant, K9Way/Doggystyle,
> Chris Robin, and now even IHeartWuzzy. I will stand by my statement, that
> there is only two ways of looking at morality. One, is that concepts of
> right and wrong are eternal, absolute, and standards set by our Creator. If
> you reject that premise, then there is only one other way of looking at it,
> and that is that Man sets standards of right and wrong. Jerry Sturdivant
> even thinks that Man's "civil tenants" pre-dates establishment of religion.
> I doubt that.
>
> But if the belief of the Left is true, then there is absolutely no reason
> that one man's belief system should rank over another man's belief system.
> And not even ONE of you people on this newsgroup has stepped up and
> explained why one man's moral code should rank over another man's moral
> code.
And neither have you ..unless the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or Santa
told you so !
That's because you cannot. No one here can. No one can explain why
> Pol Pot's moral code and belief system should not rank over your own moral
> code and belief system. It is not enough to be nice. Just being nice
> doesn't cut it. Right and wrong is eternal, and it is determined by God,
> even if you do not believe in God.
>
> There, I've said my piece. I don't expect any argument, because you cannot
> argue what I have said. Many of you think this is a joke, or a game.
> That's because you live in the comforts of modern day America, and do not
> understand history. You have no clue, but are going to be in for a rude
> awakening. God help you.
>
> -Paul Popinjay
Just when you think that youve been gypped ..the bearded lady comes and
does a double back flip!!!
-----�
Clave
<...>
> If God told you to kill your child, would you?
>
> If you don't have any children, assume for the sake of the question
> that you do.
And God spake unto Abraham, saying, "Holy shit, dude! I didn't think you'd
really do it! What the hell have you been smoking?"
Jim
--
That God, always joking around...
ChrisRobin
> I'm not confused about anything. It is my thread. One would think that I
> know what I am posting, in my own thread. As with others, you are bringing
> up religion. I am not bringing up religion at all. My premise is simple,
> and correct. Either morality is absolute, or it is situational. If it is
> the latter, then it actually does not exist.
That depends. Are you talking societal morality, or individual morality?
You seem to be confusing the two concepts.
> >> > Do they offer Philosophy 101 at your local community college?
> >
> >> How should I know? I've never been there.
> >
> > No kidding?
> We're all so lucky to have you smart college types, Chris. Going back to my
> original post, and my bringing up the Cambodian Genocide, you do know,
> Chris, who were the first ones to be exterminated, right Chris? The ends
> still justify the means, Chris?
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Try harder please.
________________________________________________________________________�
Peg Smith
Paul Popinjay
>
Who says so?
Jerry Sturdivant
"Mike Franklin"
> If God told you to kill your child, would you?
>
> If you don't have any children, assume for the
> sake of the question that you do.
His god did kill children; thousand of innocent children. Look up Passover.
Jerry (passed over) 'n Vegas
- Never trust political advice from a man without children.
Jerry Sturdivant
"Paul Popinjay"
>> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
> Who says so?
Me.
Jerry �n Vegas
- Conservative Logic: Facing the problem = Condoning immorality.
snex
wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:30:09 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
>
> >I'm not confused about anything. It is my thread. One would think that I
> >know what I am posting, in my own thread. As with others, you are bringing
> >up religion. I am not bringing up religion at all. My premise is simple,
> >and correct. Either morality is absolute, or it is situational. If it is
> >the latter, then it actually does not exist.
>
> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
i disagree. in fact, its impossible to have absolute morality even
*with* god. there is nothing at all "absolutely moral" about any
commands a hypothetical god gives us. he can only enforce these
commands by force, the same way we enforce human moral standards. the
only reason you would have to follow god's commands is out of fear of
punishment.
Mike Franklin
> "Mike Franklin" <mkfrn...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:94f3962b-2118-40e2-9abb-
>
> > If God told you to kill your child, would you?
>
> No, I would not. What kind of a question is that? Certainly not relevent
> to this discussion.
Of course it's relevant. You just admitted that you really don't
believe that God is the highest moral authority. So where do you get
your ideas of right and wrong?
> Besides, I don't know why God would ask me to do that when there are already
> thousands of Americans murdering their children every year through abortion.
> There's plenty of dead babies to go around.
God doesn't need dead babies. What God needs, according to the Bible,
is your unquestioning obedience above all else.
Mike
snex
one has to wonder why an all-powerful being needs anything at all.
ChrisRobin
> one has to wonder why an all-powerful being needs anything at all.
Indeed. The poor guy seems a bit insecure.
____________________________________________________________________�
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
da pickle
>> one has to wonder why an all-powerful being needs anything at all.
>
> Indeed. The poor guy seems a bit insecure.
One also might wonder about those that wonder about "beings" that might be
all-powerful ... and wonder if the wonder about such beings might be
misplaced.
Pepe Papon
wrote:
I've wondered that many times, myself. Why does He need to be
worshipped?
Pepe Papon
I just said so. Who says otherwise?
Pepe Papon
wrote:
>On Sep 8, 2:38嚙緘m, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid>
>wrote:
>> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:30:09 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
>>
>> <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >I'm not confused about anything. 嚙瘢t is my thread. 嚙瞌ne would think that I
>> >know what I am posting, in my own thread. 嚙璀s with others, you are bringing
>> >up religion. 嚙瘢 am not bringing up religion at all. 嚙瞎y premise is simple,
>> >and correct. 嚙瘟ither morality is absolute, or it is situational. 嚙瘢f it is
>> >the latter, then it actually does not exist.
>>
>> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
>
>i disagree. in fact, its impossible to have absolute morality even
>*with* god. there is nothing at all "absolutely moral" about any
>commands a hypothetical god gives us. he can only enforce these
>commands by force, the same way we enforce human moral standards. the
>only reason you would have to follow god's commands is out of fear of
>punishment.
I disagree with your last sentence. It's certainly possible to follow
God's commands or any moral code out of desire to do good.
It's hard to argue whether or not morality comes from God without
defining precisely what is meant by "God".
Jerry Sturdivant
On Sep 9 2009 1:35 PM, snex wrote:
> one has to wonder why an all-powerful
> being needs anything at all.
But the intermediaries do. Here comes the collection plate. "Have your young
son bring it to my chambers."
Jerry (a-men) 'n Vegas
- School Prayer: Creationists' only hope to pass biology
snex
wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 07:47:44 -0700 (PDT), snex <snex...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Sep 8, 2:38 pm, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 Sep 2009 07:30:09 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
>
> >> <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >know what I am posting, in my own thread. As with others, you are bringing
> >> >up religion. I am not bringing up religion at all. My premise is simple,
> >> >and correct. Either morality is absolute, or it is situational. If it is
> >> >the latter, then it actually does not exist.
>
> >> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
>
> >i disagree. in fact, its impossible to have absolute morality even
> >*with* god. there is nothing at all "absolutely moral" about any
> >commands a hypothetical god gives us. he can only enforce these
> >commands by force, the same way we enforce human moral standards. the
> >only reason you would have to follow god's commands is out of fear of
> >punishment.
>
> I disagree with your last sentence. It's certainly possible to follow
> God's commands or any moral code out of desire to do good.
thats only if you assume god's commands are good by definition. but
paul's question about why we should prefer one man's moral system over
another's applies equally to god. why should we prefer god's commands
over a man's?
Paul Popinjay
On Sep 8, 5:41 pm, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Mike Franklin" <mkfrn...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:94f3962b-2118-40e2-9abb-
>
> > If God told you to kill your child, would you?
>
> > No, I would not. What kind of a question is that? Certainly not relevent
> > to this discussion.
> Of course it's relevant. You just admitted that you really don't
> believe that God is the highest moral authority.
How is that implied, fuck face? I just said what *I* would do, that's all.
You're trying in a very weak attempt to put words in my mouth, asshole. But
if you want me to lay it out for you, dumb ass, I still think God is the
highest moral authority, but I would not kill my baby no matter what or who
told me to. I'm just no fucking good, that's the truth of it. Since I was
15 years old I've served terms for bank robberies, mayhem, various thefts,
and numerous assaults with deadly weapons. That didn't mean I stopped
believing in God, it was just that I'm a no good mutherfucker, that's all.
I've got the demons in me. And I will probably spend eternity in hell for
all the bad things I have done in my life. Do you have a problem with that,
Franklin? Go fuck yourself. Try your little bag of internet trick
questions on someone as weak-minded as you. Someone like Clave perhaps.
cordially,
-Paul Popinjay
intang...@yahoo.com
> I still think God is the
> highest moral authority, but I would not kill my baby no matter what or who
> told me to.
So your complete faith and obedience to "God" is...
...Completely made up.
Your principles--perhaps even your morality--are entirely changeable
from situation to situation.
Is that a fair assessment?
Paul Popinjay
news:639f5f48-4c70-4cff...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> So your complete faith and obedience to "God" is...
> ...Completely made up.
> Your principles--perhaps even your morality--are entirely changeable
> from situation to situation.
> Is that a fair assessment?
No, it is not a fair assessment, fuck face. My morality is not entirely
changeable. I am possessed! I am very immoral. And if I feel I have to
spend eternity in the fire below, I'm not going alone, numb nuts. Somebody
needs to pay for the pain and misery I have received from RGP. I came into
this world as one, but I am going out with more. And I might just stop in
your neighborhood before the final episode, Orange. Forgive me of my wicked
thoughts, my wicked ways. SATAN! SATAN! Yeah! SATAN!!! YES! YES!
-Paul Popinjay
Paul Popinjay
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 04:10:47 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>
>>> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
>>
>>
>>Who says so?
>
> I just said so.
Ha! Yeah, but you're fucking dope, Pepe. Get the fuck outta here. Quit
kiddin around, you don't rate.
Pepe Papon
<paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:iq5ga5dti11hh6t62...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 04:10:47 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
>> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who says so?
>>
>> I just said so.
>
>
>Ha! Yeah, but you're fucking dope, Pepe. Get the fuck outta here. Quit
>kiddin around, you don't rate.
Y'know, Paul, sometimes you say things that are just plain not nice.
IHeartWuzzy
> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:08:20 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >news:iq5ga5dti11hh6t62...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 04:10:47 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
> >> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>>>
> >>>> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Who says so?
> >>
> >> I just said so.
> >
> >
> >Ha! Yeah, but you're fucking dope, Pepe. Get the fuck outta here. Quit
> >kiddin around, you don't rate.
>
> Y'know, Paul, sometimes you say things that are just plain not nice.
> --
> ~ Seth Jackson
God says it's because he's amoral.
_______________________________________________________________________�
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
Pepe Papon
<a55...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>On Sep 10 2009 1:49 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 20:08:20 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
>> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> >news:iq5ga5dti11hh6t62...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 04:10:47 -0700, "Paul Popinjay"
>> >> <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>"Pepe Papon" <hitme...@mindspring.dot.com.invalid> wrote in message
>> >>>>
>> >>>> It's possible to have absolute morality without belief in God.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Who says so?
>> >>
>> >> I just said so.
>> >
>> >
>> >Ha! Yeah, but you're fucking dope, Pepe. Get the fuck outta here. Quit
>> >kiddin around, you don't rate.
>>
>> Y'know, Paul, sometimes you say things that are just plain not nice.
>> --
>> ~ Seth Jackson
>
>God says it's because he's amoral.
Next time you talk to God, please tell him I said hi.
VegasJerry
> How is that implied, fuck face? I just said what *I* would
> do, that's all. You're trying in a very weak attempt to
> put words in my mouth, asshole. But if you want me to lay
> it out for you, dumb ass, I still think God is the highest
> moral authority, but I would not kill my baby no matter
> what or who told me to. I'm just no fucking good, that's
> the truth of it. Since I was 15 years old I've served terms
> for bank robberies, mayhem, various thefts, and numerous
> assaults with deadly weapons. That didn't mean I stopped
> believing in God, it was just that I'm a no good mutherfucker,
> that's all. I've got the demons in me. And I will probably
> spend eternity in hell for all the bad things I have done
> in my life. Do you have a problem with that, Franklin?
> Go fuck yourself. Try your little bag of internet trick
> questions on someone as weak-minded as you. Someone like
> Clave perhaps.
One of the penalties you pay for trolling so much is I tend to laugh all
the way through posts like this. Whether you�re serious or not is not
important. It really cracks me up because it�s funnier considering it a
troll.
Jerry (laughing it up) �n Vegas
- Learn to laugh at yourself.............WE HAVE!
-------�
Mike Franklin
> > Of course it's relevant. You just admitted that you really don't
> > believe that God is the highest moral authority.
>
> How is that implied, fuck face? I just said what *I* would do, that's all.
> You're trying in a very weak attempt to put words in my mouth, asshole. But
> if you want me to lay it out for you, dumb ass, I still think God is the
> highest moral authority, but I would not kill my baby no matter what or who
> told me to. I'm just no fucking good, that's the truth of it. Since I was
> 15 years old I've served terms for bank robberies, mayhem, various thefts,
> and numerous assaults with deadly weapons. That didn't mean I stopped
> believing in God, it was just that I'm a no good mutherfucker, that's all.
> I've got the demons in me. And I will probably spend eternity in hell for
> all the bad things I have done in my life. Do you have a problem with that,
> Franklin? Go fuck yourself. Try your little bag of internet trick
> questions on someone as weak-minded as you. Someone like Clave perhaps.
>
> cordially,
> -Paul Popinjay
Fair enough. This may be the first time someone has admitted to me
that they will do evil when it suits them.
How you can write what you did and criticize other people's codes of
conduct, whithin the same thread, is beyond me.
Mike
Paul Popinjay
Fair enough. This may be the first time someone has admitted to me
that they will do evil when it suits them.
How you can write what you did and criticize other people's codes of
conduct, whithin the same thread, is beyond me.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where have I criticized another RGPer for doing wrong? I'm not going to
look through every post of mine, but I seriously doubt if you can show where
I have criticized someone for doing wrong. What gets me is that you don't
ADMIT that you do wrong. You twist things around and convince yourselves
that there is no absolute values, and you do it so you can do wrong without
feeling guilty about it. You're dishonest, that's all. Everyone in this
thread that has twisted the truth that I speak of is guilty of being
dishonest. That's why they call it "situation ethics". You guys make the
rules up as you go along, by the situation. This is basically why western
civilization is crumbling.
There's going to be hell to pay, literally.
-Paul Popinjay
RichD
> Right and wrong is eternal, and it is determined by God,
> even if you do not believe in God.
Allahu akbar!
--
Rich
01910infinity
> On Sep 7, "Paul Popinjay" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Right and wrong is eternal, and it is determined by God,
> > even if you do not believe in God.
>
> Allahu akbar!
HaShem Almighty
verses
Allahu Mighty....
>
> www.godchecker.com
>
> --
> Rich
thomas p.
"01910infinity" <01910i...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:699fc102-8a21-4d3b...@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
HaShem Almighty
verses
Mighty Mouse will save the day!
Trance Gemini
Mike Franklin
wrote:
> that they will do evil when it suits them.
>
> How you can write what you did and criticize other people's codes of
> conduct, whithin the same thread, is beyond me.
>
> Mike
>
>
> Where have I criticized another RGPer for doing wrong? I'm not going to
> look through every post of mine, but I seriously doubt if you can show where
> I have criticized someone for doing wrong.
Where have I accused you of criticizing another RGPer for doing
wrong? What I did accuse you of, is criticizng other RGPer's moral
priciples. And just so you won't have to search through all of your
posts in this thread, here is you doing exactly that:
"C'mon, admit it, you do not believe in the sanctity of individual
property rights. By God's standards, that is wrong, morally. Yet
with the backing of mob rule, you can justify it. This is what I am
saying. People of your ilk are guided by Machiavellian principle. In
other words, you have no principle." - PP
> What gets me is that you don't ADMIT that you do wrong.
I'm not going to look through every post of mine, but I seriously
doubt you can show me where I have refused to ADMIT that I do wrong.
> You twist things around and convince yourselves that there is no absolute values, and you do it so you can do wrong without feeling guilty about it.
Feel free to present an argument supporting your idea that there are
moral absolutes. Do that, and you might convince me that you are
right.
Then you write the following statement...
>You're dishonest, that's all. Everyone in this thread that has twisted the truth that I speak of is guilty of being dishonest.
... in the same post in which you previously wrote...
> Where have I criticized another RGPer for doing wrong?
So, you don't have to search through every post of yours in this
thread, to find where you criticized another RGPer for doing wrong,
just the one you're currently writing!
> That's why they call it "situation ethics".
> You guys make the rules up as you go along, by the situation.
I see your point. How silly of us to make moral decisions based on
the details of the situation in question.
We should all be like you, basing our morality on religious dogma
handed down over 2000 years ago, while at the same time feeling free
to violate those moral principles when it suits us. Yeah, that would
be much better.
> This is basically why western civilization is crumbling.
So where did we start to go wrong, Paul? Was it when we outlawed
slavery?
Mike
RichD
> > > Right and wrong is eternal, and it is determined by God,
> > > even if you do not believe in God.
>
> > Allahu akbar!
> >www.godchecker.com
>
Is she the one who demands orgies during the sacrifices?
--
Rich
RichD
> One of the penalties you pay for trolling so much is I tend to laugh all
> the way through posts like this. Whether you’re serious or not is not
> important.
>
How can you laugh, when the world is full of guns
and poverty and racism and CO2?
Typical selfish liberal, cares about no one but himself...
--
Rich
Jerry Sturdivant
"RichD"
>> One of the penalties you pay for trolling so much is I
>> tend to laugh all the way through posts like this.
>> Whether you�re serious or not is not important.
> How can you laugh, when the world is full of guns
> and poverty and racism and CO2?
>
> Typical selfish liberal, cares about no one but himself...
Well� <sniff..> perhaps you�re, uh, (bowing my head), maybe you�re right�
(tearing up�), I guess I should �
ah, (snort!) I should (guffaw � snort � giggle) I, (heh�)
BWHA! HA! HA! Sorry! I just couldn�t keep a straight face� sorry�
Jerry (openly yucking it up) �n Vegas
- Never play leapfrog with a unicorn!!