Amazon 7 #26 March 16, 2009 Quote Er...did you have something to say about Aquinas or Augustine's rationale for support of the death penalty, perchance? No I was primarily talking about needledick white men with persecution complexes..who seem to feel they are discriminated against more than women or any other race in this country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #27 March 16, 2009 I see...nothing to add to the discourse I take it. How predictable. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #28 March 16, 2009 QuoteThey emulate democrats (except for Jeanne) talking about their support for racial discrimination - they run like cowards because they lack the courage to face facts. like the fact that affirmative action is not 'racial discrimination'.stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 March 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteThey emulate democrats (except for Jeanne) talking about their support for racial discrimination - they run like cowards because they lack the courage to face facts. like the fact that affirmative action is not 'racial discrimination'. Preference given based SOLELY on race, is, in FACT, racism. You fail.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #30 March 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThey emulate democrats (except for Jeanne) talking about their support for racial discrimination - they run like cowards because they lack the courage to face facts. like the fact that affirmative action is not 'racial discrimination'. Preference given based SOLELY on race, is, in FACT, racism. You fail. Spoken like another greatly affected white guy whose whole life has been so devastated by affirmative action. Such a horrible fate to gtow up in an under priveledged ghetto. No wonder you have had tocatertothemilitary your whole life to find meaning... like so many other minorities have done. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #31 March 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteThey emulate democrats (except for Jeanne) talking about their support for racial discrimination - they run like cowards because they lack the courage to face facts. like the fact that affirmative action is not 'racial discrimination'. Preference given based SOLELY on race, is, in FACT, racism. You fail. no, i don't think so... QuoteThe term affirmative action refers to policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in an attempt to promote equal opportunity. The focus of such policies ranges from employment and education to public contracting and health programs (such as breast or prostate cancer screenings). The impetus towards affirmative action is twofold: to maximize the benefits of diversity in all levels of society, and to redress disadvantages due to overt, institutional, or involuntary discrimination. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_actionstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #32 March 16, 2009 Quotesupport for racial discrimination. separate thread here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3512942;#3512942stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #33 March 16, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf Jesus was supposed to be such a good and peaceful guy, how come his followers are such a bloodthirsty lot? If Allah was supposed to be such and good and peaceful guy, how come his followers are such a bloodthirsty lot? (Middle East) If Buddah was supposed to be such a good and peaceful guy, how come his followers are such a bloodthirsty lot? (China / Cambodia) Right, so if everyone else does it, that makes it OK? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #34 March 16, 2009 Quote did you have something to say about Aquinas or Augustine's rationale for support of the death penalty, perchance? In the very early days of Christendom (pre-Constantine), there was debate as to whether the early Catholic Church rejected all killing (not just murder) and engagement in violence, including military service – they became martyrs. The position changed, largely as the Catholic Church assumed the power of the government. Invoking St Thomas of Aquinas opens up a lot of issues. Aquinas also wrote questioning whether women have souls (Summa Theologica, 1, qu. 92, Summa Theologica, 2, qu. 18, and Summa contra Gentiles, IV, qu. 88.) Aquinas tolerated slavery as well: “Slavery among men is natural, for some are naturally slaves. Now 'slavery belongs to the right of nations,' as Isidore states. Therefore the right of nations is a natural right.” (Summa Theologica, 2, qu. 57). The Catholic Church later did assert that women have souls and opposition to slavery. Positions changed. More recently, the Catholic Church has not been hesitant about w/r/t opposition to the death penalty. Pope John Paul II called capital punishment “cruel and unnecessary.” See, the “Evangelium Vitae” (The Gospel of Life) issued 25 March 1995. The Catholic Church and its cardinals and bishops have issued numerous statements against the death penalty over the last 35 years, including opposition to death penalty for convicted terrorists. Historical arguments like Aquinas and Augustine can, & I would argue should, influence current thinking. And the context of the historical times in which they were produced should be considered. Seeking guidance & inspiration from the great religious traditions and from religious philosophers/ethicists is a good thing, imo While individuals may be influenced in their thinking by St Thomas of Assisi, St Thomas Aquinas, Saint Teresa of Avila (a personal favorite), the Norse Poetic Edda, the Bhagavad Gita, Soren Kierkegaard, (“St Carl” ) von Clausewitz, Spinoza (orthodox Jew who eventually became a pantheist), the Dali Lama, Heinlein’s _Stranger in a Strange Land_ or Star Trek’s “prime directive,” the US has a civil-based government – Thank God! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #35 March 16, 2009 QuoteSeeking guidance & inspiration from the great religious traditions and from religious philosophers/ethicists is a good thing, imo I'm not so sure that religion offers any useful insight into morals. As you point out, Aquinas accepted slavery, then there was the Inquisition and various Witch hunts that have been carried out in the name of God. Even in more modern times, there are many religious philosophies that accept the death penalty, literal "eye for an eye" justice or even support terrorism. On the other side of the coin, the same religions oppose slavery, the death penalty and/or terrorism. In order to make any sense of religious "moral guidance" you have to send every word through your own internal bullshit filter. How can religion offer any special moral guidance when it supports any and every postion you want it to and you have to weed out the crap anyway? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #36 March 16, 2009 Quote Quote Seeking guidance & inspiration from the great religious traditions and from religious philosophers/ethicists is a good thing, imo I'm not so sure that religion offers any useful insight into morals. As you point out, Aquinas accepted slavery, then there was the Inquisition and various Witch hunts that have been carried out in the name of God. Even in more modern times, there are many religious philosophies that accept the death penalty, literal "eye for an eye" justice or even support terrorism. On the other side of the coin, the same religions oppose slavery, the death penalty and/or terrorism. In order to make any sense of religious "moral guidance" you have to send every word through your own internal bullshit filter. How can religion offer any special moral guidance when it supports any and every postion you want it to and you have to weed out the crap anyway? Think you've got some real and serious questions in there. (Rather than purely reactionary critiques.) I'd like to think more on the response ... but my first-level, sincere response is this is where robust analytical training and skepticism is useful to understand historical context, interpret, and apply the lessons to issues today rather than metaphorically cut-n-pasting. At the same time, there's value, imo, in not having to & recreate the ethical and philosophical concepts anew in each individual's life time. E.g., I can reference Aristotle's view of forms, Heidegger's "Da Sein," and Clausewitz on the nature of politics & war and some communities will understand those concepts. (Agree with 2, disagree with 1.) Kind of like referencing the '45 degree rule' around here. There's also value, imo, in being able to identify schools of thought or specific doctrine w/which one does not agree and *why.* Very good question tho'. And one with which I do think most serious religious ethicists and philosphers tussle. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #37 March 16, 2009 Quote I'd like to think more on the response ... but my first-level, sincere response is this is where robust analytical training and skepticism is useful to understand historical context, interpret, and apply the lessons to issues today rather than metaphorically cut-n-pasting. Erm... since when has religion been robustly analytical or skeptical in its approach to philosophy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #38 March 16, 2009 QuoteQuote I'd like to think more on the response ... but my first-level, sincere response is this is where robust analytical training and skepticism is useful to understand historical context, interpret, and apply the lessons to issues today rather than metaphorically cut-n-pasting. Erm... since when has religion been robustly analytical or skeptical in its approach to philosophy? The validity or dispution of that assertion is independent of the skills of the individual seeking guidance. The latter can be robustly analytical and skeptical. For historical examples, see Spinoza and Descartes (the latter who was an avowed Roman Catholic). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #39 March 17, 2009 Oh dear God - St. Carl! That is so awesome. Aquinas and Augustine both said things with which I disagree - you've quoted a couple; there are more. Their logic on the death penalty is not among them. I've never heard Aquinas' logic on that subject rebutted by anyone. Nor Augustine's. I rather like City of God and its philosophy of Church, State, City of the World, and City of Heaven. Very interesting philosophical structure. With regards to the State and execution of citizens, I agree with him. Using Augustinian and Aquinan - or would that be Aquinic? - philosophy, it would seem to follow that in today's State, where one perceives the debt of the State to be a more malevolent threat to the general good than the continued life of the criminal in conjunction with the fact that it is less expensive to the State to keep said criminal alive, I think it within the confines of Augustine's philosophical beliefs/ structure to assume the death penalty in that case would be wrong. Aquinas' as well. Being as that mirrors my own current beliefs, perhaps one might call it the Anvil corollary to both Augustine and Aquinas? Again, because it can be cogently argued that the death penalty IS moral, latae sentientae has not been declared for its support or participation. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #40 March 17, 2009 Incorrect in all regards. Any affirmative action program based on race is racially discriminatory in nature by definition. Any such program based upon sex is sexually discriminatory in nature. No exception. No negotiation. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #41 March 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I'd like to think more on the response ... but my first-level, sincere response is this is where robust analytical training and skepticism is useful to understand historical context, interpret, and apply the lessons to issues today rather than metaphorically cut-n-pasting. Erm... since when has religion been robustly analytical or skeptical in its approach to philosophy? The validity or dispution of that assertion is independent of the skills of the individual seeking guidance. The latter can be robustly analytical and skeptical. For historical examples, see Spinoza and Descartes (the latter who was an avowed Roman Catholic). /Marg Ok, I've given it a day now to sink in and I still have no idea what you just said. What assertion? The latter who? Historical examples of what? Is this a cryptic crossword clue? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #42 March 17, 2009 Quote Incorrect in all regards. Any affirmative action program based on race is racially discriminatory in nature by definition. Any such program based upon sex is sexually discriminatory in nature. No exception. No negotiation. i think perhaps you should stick to the stories in the bible stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #43 March 17, 2009 Quote Quote Incorrect in all regards. Any affirmative action program based on race is racially discriminatory in nature by definition. Any such program based upon sex is sexually discriminatory in nature. No exception. No negotiation. i think perhaps you should stick to the stories in the bible Vinny is right, not often perhaps, but he is here. Racism is defined as discrimination or prejudice based on race. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race. Therefore affirmative action is racism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #44 March 17, 2009 no, racism is a belief that your race is somehow superior to another - and then acting on that belief stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #45 March 17, 2009 affirmative action, on the other hand, takes as its basis that the races and the sexes are equal. (giving women the right to vote was at one time an example of affirmative action)stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #46 March 17, 2009 Quoteaffirmative action, on the other hand, takes as its basis that the races and the sexes are equal. (giving women the right to vote was at one time an example of affirmative action) Giving women the right to vote was an act of equality. Afirmative action seeks to address an imbalance by creating an opposite imbalance, not by creating equality. If they'd given women two votes to redress the previous imbalance where they had no votes, that would have been afirmative action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #47 March 17, 2009 Quote Quote affirmative action, on the other hand, takes as its basis that the races and the sexes are equal. (giving women the right to vote was at one time an example of affirmative action) Giving women the right to vote was an act of equality. Afirmative action seeks to address an imbalance by creating an opposite imbalance, not by creating equality. If they'd given women two votes to redress the previous imbalance where they had no votes, that would have been afirmative action. good stuff however, you say 'opposite imbalance' and i say 'shield' which is similar, but different. and, it is easy to enforce/takeup the right to vote. it is a different matter to enforce/takeup the right to equal and fair treatment - which relies on the interpretation of another person, usually with power over you stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #48 March 17, 2009 Quote however, you say 'opposite imbalance' and i say 'shield' which is similar, but different. and, it is easy to enforce/takeup the right to vote. it is a different matter to enforce/takeup the right to equal and fair treatment - which relies on the interpretation of another person, usually with power over you The way to get equality is enforce equal and fair treatment, not create more inequality to try and balance the previous inequality. Tackle the root of the problem, don't paint over the symptoms. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #49 March 17, 2009 Quote The way to improve things is enforce equal and fair treatment. you're describing affirmative action stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #50 March 17, 2009 Quote Quote The way to improve things is enforce equal and fair treatment. you're describing affirmative action Well this conversation is pointless. What I am describing is equality. Affirmative action is not equal, by definition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
