Friday February 27, 2015
Jump to content
In its simplicity it is truly eloquent and thought provoking. The sentence(s) contain so very much of what I believe to be true. Additionally, I will ask the question : Why can Liberals not understand ?
Tom, What is that old saying about disagreeing without being disagreeable? I think that we have hashed the topic enough for the time being.
Tom, Schopenhauer was and is interesting. Like all philosophers, he presents postulates or points of view that are both applauded and condemned. For purposes of our discussion, his logic is useful. However, I was not attempting to be super-logical but was attempting to use succinct and rather simple hypotheticals. I am sorry if the outcomes were to lead you to the belief that I think that difficult moral issues usually have simple solutions. They usually do not.
An answer to the question that you posed in your last post, I do not agree that we can beat terrorists without doing things that even we might find repulsive. Historically I will mention the bombing of Hamburg where thousands of civilians were consumed by fire. The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in the deaths of many thousands of civilians. The A-Bombs. Etc. I do not believe that these and many other horrors were a result of abandoning our principles forever. Rather, I think that some principles of some people were temporarily changed by circumstances or lack of will or an alteration to a different principle that was thought to be higher. As an aside, some of my ancestors came to this land because they were Quakers. One G+ Uncle was removed from the church because he fought in the Revolutionary War, which was against the church philosophy. I do not condemn those, like the Quakers, who stick to a strict set of beliefs that do not agree with mine. Simply, I just want to make sure that I know why I believe as I do and find it morally palatable.
Tom, If you could save the lives/ health of ten or a hundred or a thousand people by pushing a terrorist for information you would not ? How is this question so different from : " Would you steal food to keep your infant alive"? How about; "Would you kill a person about to kill an innocent victim?" Does the Greater Good not nullify personal preferences at times?
Tom, You mentioned that the American people would never approve of torture. I am going to take a different view. I think that the American people would approve of "torture" under certain conditions. (First, what is torture?) Our enemies give us no grace and will kill us if they are able. If our government captures someone who is involved in a plot to do us great harm and the event is imminent, it seems only logical that usual good manners be tossed aside in favor of getting information that might save many lives. I do not like it but sometimes people decide to do things that are not likeable in order to save things that are likeable.
Tom, It takes a great deal of perspective, foresight, vision, knowledge and empathy to make decisions that at times involve the public good v. private good. In certain circumstances I could envision the needs/wants of the public taking precedence over the rights of private property owners. Perhaps an example is the establishment of public parks or public facilities purchased by right of eminent domain (which, by the way, can and has been) abused. In other circumstances I place many public v. private disputes in the category of narrow "I wants". In the case of the Granite Dells property, most of the "anti" arguments appear to fit into the last category.
Mr. Spatti, Why do we not have the courtesy to admit that all people who disagree with our point of view are not varlots, imbeciles, haters, and bigots? Try it sometime and you might be surprised at what can be learned.
Tom, "What in the world would prompt an adult man to play a "prank" like that...?" To get an answer see the definition of "weird" or "wierd". :)
Thank you and "right back at 'ya". :)
Tom, From the information that you provided, it seems that the SLE can do what it is chartered to do. Also , it seems that the two bodies that formed the SLE can by mutual agreement decide what the SLE should do. Should the SLE decide that it is independent and can do as it wishes it would appear that the bodies that formed could (in unison) alter, amend or cancel the duties of SLE. It only seems reasonable....
Last login: Friday, February 13, 2015