And what makes you unable to understand anything deeper than an op-ed piece? You should apply yourself to following a line of argument.
Oh, if someone chooses to act on certain different ideas I would do a lot more than merely "'say' something". I hope you would also.
And there we have a partial answer to "Why is America still so prone to wars of religion?". -- Your belligerency.
Let's try a hypothetical. You come across a man dragging a screaming woman away a knifepoint. Reasoning that if you were in her place, you would want to be rescued, you shoot the man. See? Violence. The man was simply acting on a different idea of the good life -- namely, that it includes raping and murdering. I get to say that his actions are evil and wrong, but if you're being consistent (and you probably wouldn't be -- you'd probably say what is true rather than what is consistent with your false worldview) you'll simply say you happen to dislike his actions. But which is more belligerent, to use violence to stop what is evil and wrong, or to use violence based on your personal dislikes?
We've been fighting various internecine 'wars' on religious/moral questions since ratification.
"Wars" and wars are different things.
Babble on if you must, but strifeful it is; - to little effect.
You have yet to explain why I'm engaging in strife and you aren't, unless you're of the view than everything you don't agree with is strife.
So why do those who delight in harming the weak -- and they do exist -- have a delight which is bad and unworthy?
Now you're asking me why evil exists? -- Good grief man.. Talk to your pastor or get some other professional advice. Obviously I can't help you..
The part I have quoted in bold is, as best I can tell, what you are replying to. But if you look at the rest of the paragraph -- that context thing again -- you will find I was asking if you can provide a basis for that judgment, not assuming the judgment and asking why such things exist (then again, you may not: obliviousness seems to be your style). Again: if there is evil, if it is evil to delight in harming the weak, what is it that makes such things evil? By what standard? You can't just cite the Golden Rule, because you have only defended the Golden Rule itself in terms of self-interest (and I can't conceive of any other defense possible within your worldview) and people who delight in harming the weak judge their interests in a way that precludes the Golden Rule. So at that point what do you say? Or do you kill or imprison them when they act of their desires, not because it is right to do so, but simply because you want to?
So why do those who delight in harming the weak -- and they do exist -- have a delight which is bad and unworthy? The Golden Rule does not serve their interests as conceived by themselves. Why should they follow it anyway? Do you have a reason? Or will you "mind your own business"?
Now you're asking me why evil exists? -- Good grief man.. Talk to your pastor or get some other professional advice. Obviously I can't help you..
-- You started this by asking me a fairly simple question. My answer was unacceptable to you for some strange reason. -- Let's leave it at that.
112 P_A_I
Most of your post is merely a belligerent display of your incomprehension.
I'm simply responding to your own belligerent manner.
And what makes you unable to understand anything deeper than an op-ed piece? You should apply yourself to following a line of argument.
More irrational belligerency. -- You just can't leave it, can you?
Let's try a hypothetical. You come across a man dragging a screaming woman away a knifepoint. Reasoning that if you were in her place, you would want to be rescued, you shoot the man. See? Violence. The man was simply acting on a different idea of the good life -- namely, that it includes raping and murdering. I get to say that his actions are evil and wrong, but if you're being consistent (and you probably wouldn't be -- you'd probably say what is true rather than what is consistent with your false worldview) you'll simply say you happen to dislike his actions.
What can I say? You truly imagine you have all the answers to everything I do, obviously. Dream on.
But which is more belligerent, to use violence to stop what is evil and wrong, or to use violence based on your personal dislikes?
Again, you seem to imagine you've made a big point. - I'm happy for you.
So why do those who delight in harming the weak -- and they do exist -- have a delight which is bad and unworthy?
Now you're asking me why evil exists? -- Good grief man.. Talk to your pastor or get some other professional advice. Obviously I can't help you..
The part I have quoted in bold is, as best I can tell, what you are replying to. But if you look at the rest of the paragraph -- that context thing again -- you will find I was asking if you can provide a basis for that judgment, not assuming the judgment and asking why such things exist (then again, you may not: obliviousness seems to be your style).
You are laboring under a serious misapprehension, -- that your stream of consciousness type paragraphs are decipherable. They aren't.
Again: if there is evil, if it is evil to delight in harming the weak, what is it that makes such things evil? By what standard? You can't just cite the Golden Rule, because you have only defended the Golden Rule itself in terms of self-interest (and I can't conceive of any other defense possible within your worldview) and people who delight in harming the weak judge their interests in a way that precludes the Golden Rule. So at that point what do you say? Or do you kill or imprison them when they act of their desires, not because it is right to do so, but simply because you want to?
Your stream of gibberish defeats me once again. Its late.. Try to give me some more lucid stuff in the morning if you want an answer.