No deal, Rudy

Catholic Online ^ | 3/6/2007

[red irish]

Is that really true? I hope not! It makes me sick,sick,sick!

[red irish]

You mean like what John the Baptist did? And what did Jesus say about him? But he did lose his head. But I am sure he is better off for it.

[red irish]

What is your deal? Man are you like this all the time?

[red irish]

Trying to compare abortion to the death penalty is nonsense. Everyone knows when someone is convicted and given the death penalty it never ends there. And if they did get convicted they went through a trial and there was an investigation. In other words they were defended. Hardly what happens to an unborn baby. And how many people have died from the death penalty? Certainly not millions and not every day for whatever reason. And when they are put to death there is always so much concern to be sure they don't suffer. Give me a break! If given the death penalty they DID something terrible but still have recourse to appeal and to appeal and to appeal. You know like what happens in California.

[Aquinasfan]

There is an opinion according to which a human becomes a human not even at birth, but only at reaching the age of reason.

The person who holds this opinion is unreasonable. May I kill him?

There are lots of opinions out there. Some of them are false. Some are evil. And some, like this, are both.

Is the degree of a human being's personhood proportionate to his reasoning ability? Is a logician's life of greater value than that of a sophomore in college?

Age 7 is the traditional "age of reason." Can we justly murder non-persons under the age of reason?

[Aquinasfan]

Irrationality is "I have two [or more] courses of action, A and B. In my opinion, B is better than A, therefore I will do A"].

That's true, but you're missing a crucial point. Suppose that I have two courses of action before me, binge drinking and moderation in drinking. I know that it's better for my overall health to drink in moderation. But instead, because I so love the pleasure of drinking, I choose to drink myself to death. In this case, I am choosing the apparent good over the objective good.

No one chooses against what he perceives as good, but this does not mean that he is acting rationally, since he is acting against right reason.

The Goodness and Malice of the Internal Act of the Will

[Aquinasfan]

There is an opinion according to which a human becomes a human not even at birth, but only at reaching the age of reason.

Did you look at the photos of the aborted babies that I posted in #483? You haven't commented on them. Are you afraid to look at what you're advocating?

The last abortion advocate I debated with here was afraid to look at the photos.

[narses]

[Blackirish]

As long as appoint constitutionalists to the bench I'm fine with Rudy.

However I can't stand the current crew of fiscally liberal/social conservatives like you who are quite willing to bankrupt future generations.

[GSlob]

There is no apparent vs. objective good in your example. In your example your love of "pleasure of drinking" pushes the binge drinking value [for you] into the designation of 'greater good". So, naturally, and pretty logically, you choose the greater good over the lesser one. In your value system, however deranged it could be or appear, you will always be entirely logical- you have evolved that way. The only exceptions are accidents, and one could even make the same argument about the involuntary actions [I force you to drink at gunpoint. You do not want or like to drink, but you do not want to die either - and naturally and logically, you choose the lesser evil, aka the greater good, and drink].
And as for your other post - yep, I saw the pictures. No emotional reaction of any significance on my part.

[ZULU]

Vote Duncan Hunter.

Pro-life, anti-illegal invaders, pro-Second Amendment, pro-America in internatiopnal trade, and a man with a strong military background.

[steve-b]

I think most folks here would never believe what exactly drives the underlying resentment of the U.S. among a lot of the people in these countries.

Losers and failures always resent winners. That's part of the mental attitude that made them losers and failures in the first place.

[Aquinasfan]

There is no apparent vs. objective good in your example. In your example your love of "pleasure of drinking" pushes the binge drinking value [for you] into the designation of 'greater good".

That's why it's an apparent good. In reality, objectively, life is a greater good than the pleasure of drinking, since the pleasure of drinking is impossible without life.

It is possible for people to choose the apparent good over even the known objective good. This happens every day, and it's called moral evil or sin.

So, naturally, and pretty logically, you choose the greater good over the lesser one.

The apparent good, not the greater good. Life is the greater good, since pleasure of any kind is altogether impossible without it.

In your value system, however deranged it could be or appear, you will always be entirely logical- you have evolved that way.

Logic is the basis of all reasoning. It doesn't vary from person to person. If it did, interpersonal communication would be impossible.

The only exceptions are accidents, and one could even make the same argument about the involuntary actions [I force you to drink at gunpoint. You do not want or like to drink, but you do not want to die either - and naturally and logically, you choose the lesser evil, aka the greater good, and drink].

This would be logical, contrary to your prior example. I would be choosing the lesser evil --drunkenness over death.

And as for your other post - yep, I saw the pictures. No emotional reaction of any significance on my part.

FYI, you come across as a monster.

Regardless, I wasn't interested in your emotional reaction to the photos but whether or not you regard these infants as human beings.

[streetpreacher]

I don't have any illusions about convincing single issue pro-gun, or single issue pro-life, or single issue pro-family voters that Rudy is "their guy".

Boy, all of those "single" issues sure add up. Kind of like Juliani's marriages. They weren't really multiple marriages. They were just "single" ones in succession.

[GSlob]

All "goods" are apparent, since all value systems are conventional, individual, and even are time and circumstances dependent [when inebriated, you will see and value the things a bit, or a lot, differently from how you would do it in a sober state]. And even using the logic incoherency to weed the value systems out is rather iffy.

[Aquinasfan]

All "goods" are apparent,

Including this belief, which is good, right? So then this belief is an apparent good, and not one that conforms to objective reality (if in fact reality exists at all?)

Goodness is convertible with being. Therefore, your claim is that goodness, or being, or reality is apparent, which is contradictory.

since all value systems are conventional, individual, and even are time and circumstances dependent

You have knowledge of all value systems? You know that they are all defined by convention or subjective opinion? What about the idea that good is to be done and evil avoided? Is that an objective truth or a subjective belief?

[Lurker]

I'll never forget either.

Rudy want to force me to pay for someones abortion in direct violation of the Hyde Amendment.

Rudy is a fraud.

L

[GSlob]

I am an atheist, and thus in my reference frame your [religious] one is deranged. [And I fully expect reciprocity here]. The statement that all "goods" are apparent in their nature is not even judgeable in terms of being a "good" in itself or not. It is a statement which merely forms a part of a certain value system methodology. It is a methodological tool, and as such it is value-neutral. If the methodology is logically self consistent, and if it allows for building a system with a modicum of explanatory and predictive power with regard to more mundane things and situations, that's all I'm asking from it. And the whole methodology for building a system, or the system itself, is not a "good", greater or lesser. It is a tool, more or less useful, and allowing potential access to "goods". "A good" notion could apply only to some of its applications, and of these some are greater goods than others. Capacity to explain, understand, and predict is "a good".
The following true story is an illustration of advanced application of such a value system:
At my former workplace they were conducting an executive search for a "sweep" - a senior VP. The large sweep's office stood empty for something like a good part of a year, and nobody knew who or when would come to occupy it. A couple months before they found their sweep, I had predicted to my coworkers the nameplate to be put on that office door. I assumed a wild facial expression of prophets from bad movies, stretched my hands towards that door, defocused my gaze, and muttered: "I see it... I see it... GREEDY A-HOLE!" Everyone laughed. Couple months later they found their sweep, and everyone had to stop laughing. A year later they had to squeeze him out -he proved to be too much even for them!
No, I was not on the search committee. But what I knew was that the sweep would be chosen on the basis of conformity to the existing corporate culture [which I knew, and knew only too well], and that was sufficient for the prediction.

[nopardons]

I'm not going to be purged and I'm not anything at all like Arator. For you to compare me with a rabid pitchforker, makes me think that you were once one of them.

As for your juvenile name calling, that proves just what and who you are and nothing at all about me.

[Aquinasfan]

I am an atheist, and thus in my reference frame your [religious] one is deranged. [And I fully expect reciprocity here]. The statement that all "goods" are apparent in their nature is not even judgeable in terms of being a "good" in itself or not. It is a statement which merely forms a part of a certain value system methodology. It is a methodological tool, and as such it is value-neutral. If the methodology is logically self consistent, and if it allows for building a system with a modicum of explanatory and predictive power with regard to more mundane things and situations, that's all I'm asking from it.

Is this system truly good, (i.e, conforms to objective reality) or is it just something you're "asking from it." If the latter, why should anyone else care? If the former, you're assuming that that which is good is that which conforms with reality --that truth is good.

And the whole methodology for building a system, or the system itself, is not a "good", greater or lesser. It is a tool, more or less useful,

Something is useful insasmuch as it serves an end --a good. Utility assumes goodness and end.

...and allowing potential access to "goods".

You're using the term good, so please provide me with your definition of this term. Otherwise, I don't know what you're referring to.

The essence of true goodness is that it is convertible with being, oneness, truth and beauty. In another sense, a thing is good which lacks defect --a thing that is true to its form (in the Aristotelian sense).

"A good" notion...

"Notion" also needs to be defined. Is a notion a secretion of brain chemicals? How would chemicals in my brain conform with external reality? If my thought reduces to matter in motion, how would it be possible for me to know with certainty that an external reality even exists?

...could apply only to some of its applications, and of these some are greater goods than others. Capacity to explain, understand, and predict is "a good".

Why are these things "good" (whatever "good means)? Are these things truly "better" than inexplicability, incomprehension, and unpredictability? How do you know that?

In fact, these things are truly good, since truth is convertible with good, and the good of the intellect is knowledge and truth. Truth and knowledge are its proper object.

Why a bunch of chemicals in my brain would care about truth, or even know what truth is, is a mystery to me.

The following true story is an illustration of advanced application of such a value system: At my former workplace they were conducting an executive search for a "sweep" - a senior VP. The large sweep's office stood empty for something like a good part of a year, and nobody knew who or when would come to occupy it. A couple months before they found their sweep, I had predicted to my coworkers the nameplate to be put on that office door. I assumed a wild facial expression of prophets from bad movies, stretched my hands towards that door, defocused my gaze, and muttered: "I see it... I see it... GREEDY A-HOLE!" Everyone laughed. Couple months later they found their sweep, and everyone had to stop laughing. A year later they had to squeeze him out -he proved to be too much even for them! No, I was not on the search committee. But what I knew was that the sweep would be chosen on the basis of conformity to the existing corporate culture [which I knew, and knew only too well], and that was sufficient for the prediction.

Not sure what your point is.

You need to think more deeply atheism and materialism. There are logical consequences to the false notion that reality reduces to matter in motion, consequences that few atheists ever consider, but consequences that make materialism self-refuting.