Here's an interesting and scary quote.

SamCogar wrote:Who thinks up those questions you ask, ..... your neighbor's pet dog?

Those are natural questions that arise from Cato's pontifications about absolute morality.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The reason is only a people who understand and embrace a moral absolute can live free.

Who's moral absolute?

Yours? Mine? Or someone else's?

Tell me Ziggy do you believe moral absolutes exist?

Every individual has some level of moral absolutism. You have yours. I have mine. And your and my neighbors have theirs. But they are not all the same. What works for one of us does not necessarily work for others of us.

So yes, I believe that moral absolutes exist on an individual level- but not on a universal level.

Anser me a question Ziggy, is it wrong to take innocent blood?

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

The reason is only a people who understand and embrace a moral absolute can live free.

Who's moral absolute?

Yours? Mine? Or someone else's?

Tell me Ziggy do you believe moral absolutes exist?

Every individual has some level of moral absolutism. You have yours. I have mine. And your and my neighbors have theirs. But they are not all the same. What works for one of us does not necessarily work for others of us.

So yes, I believe that moral absolutes exist on an individual level- but not on a universal level.

Anser me a question Ziggy, is it wrong to take innocent blood?

In pursuit of what?

Again, Ziggy, is it wrong tospill innocent blood? There are only two possible answers either it is or it isn't wrong. Which is it!!

Cato

Cato wrote:Again, Ziggy, is it wrong tospill innocent blood? There are only two possible answers either it is or it isn't wrong. Which is it!!

Cato

Well, you have indicated many times here that it is OK to spill innocent blood during wartime.

So you tell us.

You're talking about what has been done in the name of religion Stephanie. I'm talking about what organized religion has become. I think there's a big difference, namely convictions and the reason behind the action.

For instance, I don't see someone like Crefflo Dollar, Rod Parsley or Benny Hinn giving up everything they have and moving to backwoods WV to shine their light.

Years ago, I used to watch Breakthrough on one of the Christian networks and I think the last straw for me was the donation hotline was toll free while the prayer hotline was a long distance call.

Either that or one of the prosperity preachers standing in front of a hundred K baby grand piano, wearing a Rolex watch, wearing a custom made Armani suit telling little old ladies living on fixed incomes that there was no need to pay their bills, that instead they should "plant their seed" with ________ (insert any of a number of preachers) and God would bless them and return their investment tenfold.

Somehow, I don't think those who were involved in the crusades or witch hunts had the same motivation.

And Cato, as Sam has said, you have a better chance of nailing Jell-O to the wall then you do of having the Marxist Ziggy commit to anything.

What, Cato has said it's acceptable to spill the blood of innocents during war. I think the Zigster said quite succinctly what I've been sputtering around about for a day and a half and I don't think there's anything Marxist about it.

I hear what your'e saying about the crooks calling themselves religious leaders, fleecing little old ladies for their late husband's pension money. It's sickening.

If you go back and read the post on the other thread, you will see Ziggy said his bias were too many to list and challenged Keli to list some. I merely answered the biggest one. Am I wrong?

And I don't recall Ziggy saying anything. He attributed something to Cato and he's danced around Cato's question pretty good but I don't see what he said. Perhaps you could clear it up.

I dunno, Aaron........I'm only half paying attention. Craig Ferguson is on and making me lmao. I'll read it again tomorrow.

Aaron wrote:And I don't recall Ziggy saying anything. He attributed something to Cato and he's danced around Cato's question pretty good but I don't see what he said. Perhaps you could clear it up.

OK, I'm awake, even had a cup of Joe.

Every individual has some level of moral absolutism. You have yours. I have mine. And your and my neighbors have theirs. But they are not all the same. What works for one of us does not necessarily work for others of us.

So yes, I believe that moral absolutes exist on an individual level- but not on a universal level.

...to which I largely agree. Now it is my belief the culture a person lives in plays a large role in determining those individual "moral absolutes".

Then Cato asked Ziggy if it is wrong to spill the blood of innocents and Ziggy replied by reminding him that Cato has said repeatedly it is acceptable during times of war. I think Cato should tell us, is it acceptable to spill the blood of innocents?

Stephanie wrote: Then Cato asked Ziggy if it is wrong to spill the blood of innocents and Ziggy replied by reminding him that Cato has said repeatedly it is acceptable during times of war. I think Cato should tell us, is it acceptable to spill the blood of innocents?

Sometimes it is necessary and acceptable to spill the blood of innocents, war or no war, to achieve the success of a greater or more important cause.

I cite a case during WWII when the British High Command knew in advance that German bombers had targetted a highly populated area in England, but the decision was made not to inform said citizens of said impending bombing.

The reason being, if they had, then the Germans would have known that the English had "broken" their Enigma code and were now privy to all their Military radio transmissions, etc.

And that is most probably not what "girlymen" or motherly females would have done.




c

First, I don't recall ever saying that. Ziggy attributed it to him but I don't recall Cato saying it. There's a big difference.

I recall on the old forum Randall attributed to Ziggy saying that the men who died in Vietnam deserved it for going to LBJ's war.

Now Ziggy said he didn't say they deserved to die and took great offense to what Randall said and tried to explain what he said but it never changed how Randall interpreted what Ziggy said.

I won't presume to speak for Cato but given the statement by Ziggy, I will say that while it is not OK to spill the blood of innocents in war, it happens. And like it or not, if you are going to fight a war it has to be an acceptable part of that war.

In World War 2, a war that Ziggy has been the least flippish on by the way, millions of innocents died all across Europe and Asia and while it wasn't "ok" it was necessary to win that war.

Do you not agree?

That's not quite the same thing, Sam.

A better analogy would be the nuclear strikes on Japan.

Aaron,

Lately I've been having trouble remembering things. I'm not kidding around. I can't remember the details of a conversation Ziggy had with Randall. I'm lucky at this point I remember Randall. I wish I were kidding.

So I'm talking specifically about the conversation at hand and my intent isn't to get Ziggy to fess up. My intent is to show Cato just how flexible "morale absolutes" are and how religion doesn't necessarily equate with morality.

I'm quite confident that Ziggy knows that Cato's answer would be very similar to what both Sam and I have said yet he is implying that Cato is perfectly content killing innocent people for no reason whatsoever.

I used the Randall story simply to show that when it happened to Ziggy, he went bullestic even though Randall was genuine in that he genuinely believed that is what Ziggy not only said, that's what he meant. I doubt the same can be said for Ziggy here.

And you didn't answer the question. Do you agree or not that there are times that the spilling of innocent blood is necessary and acceptable?

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:Again, Ziggy, is it wrong tospill innocent blood? There are only two possible answers either it is or it isn't wrong. Which is it!!

Cato

Well, you have indicated many times here that it is OK to spill innocent blood during wartime.

So you tell us.

War is hell Ziggy and it needs to always remember and understand in that manner. I have said that in times of war innocent people suffer and die. That is a fact of the art of war. I have also said that if any nation fights a war that they need to fight it to win and that means innocent people will die. If you also go back and read, I have also said that war should be made so hidious that no nation wants to entertain that war is a viable option to foreign policy. I know there is little moral high ground when it comes to war and very few wars are justified. The one thing I have not said is that is morally right to spill innocent blood in a time of war. I have said it happens and that in a time of war it is assured.

Now, my question to you remains is it mroally right to spill innocent blood.

So,

Cato wrote:Anser me a question Ziggy, is it wrong to take innocent blood?

Cato wrote:Now, my question to you remains is it mroally right to spill innocent blood.

So,

Now Willy, you have been jawing bout those moral absolutes and even questioned me on it.

And I took time outta my busy schedule to create a lengthy post on "the facts of the matter" ......... and I didn't see where you even replied to it. Did you find fault with it ......... or was it that you knew it to be truth and factual .... but in that it was contrary to your pre-programmed beliefs about being born with "moral absolutes" .... did you chose to avert your eyes and conscious thinking to the "real truths"?

Isn't that what you did, Willy?

Anyway Willy, you have asked that above question twice ....... and I isa got to thinking, ..... maybe weeese need to consult a higher authority on the matter of "moral absolutes".

Willy, that is ..... your ...... higher authority.

Willy, now read this next statement ..... and then let's discuss your stance on "moral absolutes" and how they pertain to your question of "is it morally right to spill innocent blood", to wit:

"Some time after the birth of Isaac, Abraham was commanded by the Lord to offer his son up as a sacrifice in the land of Moriah".

Now Willy, you know the rest of the story, ........ so tell me about "moral absolutes" relative to said.

.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:Again, Ziggy, is it wrong tospill innocent blood? There are only two possible answers either it is or it isn't wrong. Which is it!!

Cato

Well, you have indicated many times here that it is OK to spill innocent blood during wartime.

So you tell us.

War is hell Ziggy and it needs to always remember and understand in that manner. I have said that in times of war innocent people suffer and die. That is a fact of the art of war. I have also said that if any nation fights a war that they need to fight it to win and that means innocent people will die. If you also go back and read, I have also said that war should be made so hidious that no nation wants to entertain that war is a viable option to foreign policy. I know there is little moral high ground when it comes to war and very few wars are justified. The one thing I have not said is that is morally right to spill innocent blood in a time of war. ............................

So if not the spilling of innocent blood, then what are you advocating here:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Once they boarded the ship and learned it was only carrying humanitarian aid, what right did the Israeli government have to hijack the ship and kidnap and detain the passengers? What threat did any of them, including former Representative McKinney pose then?

I don't know if they posed any, other than aiding an enemy who has swore to remove Israel from the map. Be that as it may, it isn't our concern. Yes, we give aid to Israel and if you look at the Federal Budget we also give aid to the Palastinians. That is something we shouldn't do and I wise we didn't. This would be over and we wouldn't be having this discussion if we and the rest of world kept our noses out of the affair and let them settle it themselves.

By the way Stephanie, I'm neither pro Israel or pro Palastine. Both sides have done their share of atroscities, so neither is the innocent side. Speaking a "what if", if I had been the leader of Israel, I would have had the ship sunk, without regard to who was aboard. A message would have been sent tot he world that if they are going to aid the Palastinians they are going to face grave danger and it woudl have sent a message to the Palasitians that we mean business.

I'm a student of both the Roman art of war, General William Sherman, and Sun-Tzu. If you are going to fight, fight to accomplish two things, win quickly and decisively, and destory their will to desire to ever wage war again. That isn't accomplished by allowing busybodies to provide aid and comfort to your enemy

By what legal and moral authority would you have sunk an unarmed ship regardless of who was aboard?

Since when do medical supplies and crayons for children constitute aid and comfort to the enemy?

The waging of war is not a moral or legal issue. Despite what many want to think war canot be fought in a sanitary manner. Innocent people get hurt and killed. In the heat of battle what is legal or moral is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is defeating one's enemy. You and those people like you want war to be more like a gentleman's game. The catch is that it isn't. As I said, if I were the leader of Israel, I would have sunk the ship since it was providing aid and comfort to my enemy.

The United States has entered a number of conflicts with no intention of fighting to win. Viet Nam was one, Korea another, then Iraq twice and Afganistan. We've allowed ourselves to fight a moral and clean war, whihc in the end has done little but get alot of Americans killed or wounded. This whole mess would have been over and done, had our leaders fought the thing to win with the goals to a quick decivie victory and the breaking of the enemy's will to fight.

https://gazzfriends.forumotion.com/international-politics-f5/gaza-mercy-ship-seized-by-israel-t3502-15.htm#35218

And you didn't answer the question. Do you agree or not that there are times that the spilling of innocent blood is necessary and acceptable?

I honestly didn't know the question was being asked of me. I think the answer is probably yes, but in very rare circumstances. I honestly believe the only morally justified use of violence is in self defense of imminent death or injury and even then a moral government wouldn't bomb an entire nation of people off the face of the earth, or to "kingdom come" or any other quip.

I know my government has engaged in acts of war against other nations, killing and injuring and displacing innocent people, including children, babies, pregnant women, elderly grandparents and pacifists in the seemingly endless quest to build an empire. This disgusts me and it disgusts me that my government taxes nurses and doctors and chefs and ministers and teachers and uses the revenue they raise from us send it to other nations so they can kill each other and terrorize, sometimes even kill, people delivering medical supplies and toys to victims of the bombs and bullets they perpetrate using the excuse they were "providing comfort and aid to my enemy".

So I'm very vocal about it.

Stephanie wrote:I honestly believe the only morally justified use of violence is in self defense of imminent death or injury and even then a moral government wouldn't bomb an entire nation of people off the face of the earth, or to "kingdom come" or any other quip.

•An oxymoron (plural oxymora (greek plural) or, more often, oxymorons) is a figure of speech that combines two normally contradictory terms. ...



.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote: The one thing I have not said is that is morally right to spill innocent blood in a time of war. ............................

So if not the spilling of innocent blood, then what are you advocating here:

Cato wrote: Speaking a "what if", if I had been the leader of Israel, I would have had the ship sunk, without regard to who was aboard.

Cato wrote: As I said, if I were the leader of Israel, I would have sunk the ship since it was providing aid and comfort to my enemy.

I didn't see where Willy used the words "innocent blood" in either of his statements, ......... so why are you being intentionally disengenous in implying that he did?

Is that a nurtured "racist bias" that is again rearing its ugly face?

.

Intentionally bombing a boat load of unarmed humanitarian aid workers would be the spilling of innocent blood.

What is "intentionally disengenous" is Cato's proposition that his universal "morality" is somehow suspendable during wartime. Morality is either universal, or it is relative. Cato can't remain half pregnant forever.

While I don't agree with Cato on this one, his line of thought is that the boat was not loaded with humanitarian aid and workers but with enemy combatants providing aid to an enemy and like it or not, under international law, that has been used as justification for war.

source

Unless the ship was flying a Red Cross flag or other such internationally recognized flag, they are not considered a humanitarian aid ship and are afforded no such protection during a time of hospitalities.

And no where did Cato say that morality can be suspended during a time of war. Sorry Ziggy, you’re wrong on this one.

Try again.

While I don't agree with Cato on this one, his line of thought is that the boat was not loaded with humanitarian aid and workers but with enemy combatants providing aid to an enemy and like it or not, under international law, that has been used as justification for war.

But Cato contends that the waging of war is not a moral or legal issue.

And no where did Cato say that morality can be suspended during a time of war. Sorry Ziggy, you’re wrong on this one.

Try again

In Cato's own words:

Cato wrote:The waging of war is not a moral or legal issue. Despite what many want to think war canot be fought in a sanitary manner. Innocent people get hurt and killed. In the heat of battle what is legal or moral is irrelevent. The only thing that matters is defeating one's enemy. You and those people like you want war to be more like a gentleman's game. The catch is that it isn't. As I said, if I were the leader of Israel, I would have sunk the ship since it was providing aid and comfort to my enemy.

So Cato throws his absolute "morality" out the window when it is inconvenient to him- in the instant matter inconvenient to his purposes were he the commander of an army.

I won't speak for Cato, only how I interpret his comments and as I said, while I don't agree with him on much of this, I don't see it the same way you do, hence I don't agree with your conclusion.

I do wonder though if you have the backbone to answer his original question or are you going to continue to "jiggle" around the issue?