Re: Here's an interesting and scary quote.

by ziggy Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:09 pm

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?

He has already answered his own "original question". The spilling of innocent is OK when Cato wants it to be OK.

by Aaron Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:20 pm

He ask if you as well. So will you continue to jiggle or do you have the abilitiy to cowboy up?

by ziggy Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:41 pm

Cato's question to me was in the context of the earlier and larger question about whether morality is relative, or if there is a universal morality.

But Cato's own words about some human activity being "not a moral or legal issue" belie his contention that there is a more universal morality that supercedes our individual moralities. Cato is quite willing to cast aside that universal "morality" when its suits his purpose of how to fight a war.

And so Cato's version of universal morality is not so universal when it conflicts with his stronger desire to do something contrary to that morality. And in that regard, Cato is a lot like most of the rest of us in that our "morality" depends on how convenient it is to our immediate purposes. And so Cato's morality is no less a relative morality than the morality of anyone else.

Our moralities, like our gods, are as relative to one another and to our purposes as they need to be to justify whatever we propose to ourselves to attempt to accomplish.

by **Stephanie** Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:47 pm

What's the answer, Sam? Anarchy?

by Cato Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:56 pm

ziggy wrote:
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.

And I stand by what I said. Once war has begun, morals, ethics, and legality is out the window. The sole focus of war is to defeat one's enemy and to destory their will to wage war. That isn't Cato's ideaolgy, it is a fact of life. Like so many in this nation, you seem to think that war can be sanitary. That fact is that it can't and never will be.

If we are going to discuss war then where moral value enters into the picture is in our selection of leadership. As a people we have failed. We have waged war without any plan to quickly win and end the thing. We have waged war on people who weren't agressive towards the nation. We have waged war, with political parties using war to further their agendas. Each and every act immoral and unethical.

Now, that being said, My question still remains is the spilling of innocent blood immoral?

by Aaron Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:33 pm

ziggy wrote:Cato's question to me was in the context of the earlier and larger question about whether morality is relative, or if there is a universal morality.

But Cato's own words about some human activity being "not a moral or legal issue" belie his contention that there is a more universal morality that supercedes our individual moralities. Cato is quite willing to cast aside that universal "morality" when its suits his purpose of how to fight a war.

And so Cato's version of universal morality is not so universal when it conflicts with his stronger desire to do something contrary to that morality. And in that regard, Cato is a lot like most of the rest of us in that our "morality" depends on how convenient it is to our immediate purposes. And so Cato's morality is no less a relative morality than the morality of anyone else.

Our moralities, like our gods, are as relative to one another and to our purposes as they need to be to justify whatever we propose to ourselves to attempt to accomplish.

Here's an interesting and scary quote. - Page 3 Jello

by ziggy Sun Aug 02, 2009 12:34 am

Cato wrote:And I stand by what I said. Once war has begun, morals, ethics, and legality is out the window.

It is "out the window" only because you and other would be warriors not concerned about morality want it to be. Your and their relative morality allows you and them to justify anything they want to do when it suits their fancy.

The sole focus of war is to defeat one's enemy and to destory their will to wage war. That isn't Cato's ideaolgy, it is a fact of life.

If that is a "fact of life", then why does America get bogged down in wars it can't win in southeast Asia, in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan? If that is not "Cato's idealogy", then why is Cato about the only guy around who says that war is "not a moral or legal issue"?

Like so many in this nation, you seem to think that war can be sanitary.

I don't think that war can be sanitary. That is why I oppose going to war without both good and moral reasons to engage in war, and without a sustainable political will to prevail against an actual enemy, and not a phantom enemy.

If we are going to discuss war then where moral value enters into the picture is in our selection of leadership.

Moral values do not end there. Moral values include what those leaders do AFTER they take office- and including their decisions to both make war AND how they conduct that war.

As a people we have failed. We have waged war without any plan to quickly win and end the thing. We have waged war on people who weren't agressive towards the nation. We have waged war, with political parties using war to further their agendas. Each and every act immoral and unethical.

Now, that being said, My question still remains is the spilling of innocent blood immoral?

That depends on your definition of "innocent blood" and of "immoral". If your definition includes the proposition- as it appears to- that in time of war there are no innocents and no morality, then I refuse to answer the question because it is a false question, as demonstrated by your own relative morality.

My personal belief is that deliberately spilling the blood of innocent people is immoral- as I understand the meaning of "innocent" to be, and as I understand morality. But again, that depends on what the meanings of "innocent" and "morality" are. I am not going to be lead into a linguistic trap wherein I answer a question, but which the meaning of said question is later subjectively re-defined to make my answer necessarily wrong. So, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of "morality" is, and what the meaning of "innocent" is.

by Aaron Sun Aug 02, 2009 6:33 am

It's not about right or wrong Ziggy as the question required you to offer your what amounts to an opinion so why would you have to start dancing around trying to define words to give your opinion?

by SamCogar Sun Aug 02, 2009 8:21 am

Another "JELLO-Nailing" in process.

.

by ziggy Sun Aug 02, 2009 2:11 pm

Aaron wrote:It's not about right or wrong Ziggy as the question required you to offer your what amounts to an opinion so why would you have to start dancing around trying to define words to give your opinion?

Because meaningfull answers to questions require that the questions themselves first be meaningfull.

And Cato has already demonstrated that his "morality" is jello when it would be inconvenient to him- and that morality should be but jello in the hands of Israeli leaders today.

If Cato wants something other than a jello answer, he needs to ask something other than a jello question.

by Aaron Sun Aug 02, 2009 3:36 pm

Sorry Zig, that sounds like a cop-out to me.

by **Stephanie** Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:28 pm

To me what Cato is saying is every strike against a US target by a person from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestinians worldwide are justifiable. That's what the other side of the Cato coin is and I don't buy it.

by ziggy Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:50 pm

Aaron wrote:Sorry Zig, that sounds like a cop-out to me.

If it's a copout, it's a copout of Cato's making. He is trying to have it (morality) be both ways- both absolute and situational.

I did answer the question, BTW- and using far less "jello" than Cato used in his both pre-question and post-question background commentary.

by Aaron Sun Aug 02, 2009 4:58 pm

No, you didn't answer the question. You once again "if-ed" your way around the question and never gave anything definative.

by ziggy Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:22 pm

No, you didn't answer the question. You once again "if-ed" your way around the question and never gave anything definative.

My answer is more definative than was Cato's question.

by Aaron Sun Aug 02, 2009 5:41 pm

Once again, you're still not staying much.

by Cato Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:44 am

Stephanie wrote:To me what Cato is saying is every strike against a US target by a person from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestinians worldwide are justifiable. That's what the other side of the Cato coin is and I don't buy it.

Justifiable morally, No. Justifiable in waging war, Yes just as every attack against a target by our forces may isn't a moral thing, but justifiable in waging war.

War itself isn't moral and is to be avoided if at all possible. If you want to avoid war you have two options to do so. You either appease yor enemy, which is a sure fire way to destruction, or you arm youself and make it very clear that if attacked you will attack in return, with one purpose in mind to destory your enemy and break his will to wage war. It isn't pretty and it isn't what many want to hear, but it is a fact of life.

by Cato Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:34 am

ziggy wrote:
Cato wrote:And I stand by what I said. Once war has begun, morals, ethics, and legality is out the window.

It is "out the window" only because you and other would be warriors not concerned about morality want it to be. Your and their relative morality allows you and them to justify anything they want to do when it suits their fancy.

The sole focus of war is to defeat one's enemy and to destory their will to wage war. That isn't Cato's ideaolgy, it is a fact of life.

If that is a "fact of life", then why does America get bogged down in wars it can't win in southeast Asia, in Iraq, and now in Afghanistan? If that is not "Cato's idealogy", then why is Cato about the only guy around who says that war is "not a moral or legal issue"?

Like so many in this nation, you seem to think that war can be sanitary.

I don't think that war can be sanitary. That is why I oppose going to war without both good and moral reasons to engage in war, and without a sustainable political will to prevail against an actual enemy, and not a phantom enemy.

If we are going to discuss war then where moral value enters into the picture is in our selection of leadership.

Moral values do not end there. Moral values include what those leaders do AFTER they take office- and including their decisions to both make war AND how they conduct that war.

As a people we have failed. We have waged war without any plan to quickly win and end the thing. We have waged war on people who weren't agressive towards the nation. We have waged war, with political parties using war to further their agendas. Each and every act immoral and unethical.

Now, that being said, My question still remains is the spilling of innocent blood immoral?

That depends on your definition of "innocent blood" and of "immoral". If your definition includes the proposition- as it appears to- that in time of war there are no innocents and no morality, then I refuse to answer the question because it is a false question, as demonstrated by your own relative morality.

My personal belief is that deliberately spilling the blood of innocent people is immoral- as I understand the meaning of "innocent" to be, and as I understand morality. But again, that depends on what the meanings of "innocent" and "morality" are. I am not going to be lead into a linguistic trap wherein I answer a question, but which the meaning of said question is later subjectively re-defined to make my answer necessarily wrong. So, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on what the meaning of "morality" is, and what the meaning of "innocent" is.

Frist, as I have attempted to explain to Stephanie, I have never said war is moral. I have said and will continue to say, war cannot be made sanitary where only the bad guys get killed. That's something for the movies, but not for reality. So many on both sides of isle try to make war moral and clean, when it isn't and can never be made that way. Inf act, of all the things earth that are dangerous, trying to inject a sence of morality into war is the most dangerous thing anyone can do. Doing so, makes war seem acceptable when it isn't.

What I have said about war is that first, as Sun Tzu states the best way to win a war is to never have to fight it. However, if you are going to fight, as Sun-Tzu also says fight it to win quickly and decisively.

Your invoking Clinton is silly. Clinton was a amoral joke, who spun issues to make him look good. If you want to play his game, then you aren't much of a man. Now, there is no linguistic trap here. Spililng innocent blood is either right or it is wrong. So which is it?

by Cato Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:23 pm

My it got quiet!!!!!!

Cato

by ziggy Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:32 pm

What I have said about war is that first, as Sun Tzu states the best way to win a war is to never have to fight it. However, if you are going to fight, as Sun-Tzu also says fight it to win quickly and decisively.

Which side should fight a war that way? The side you favor? Or the other side? Or both sides?

by Cato Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:34 am

ziggy wrote:
What I have said about war is that first, as Sun Tzu states the best way to win a war is to never have to fight it. However, if you are going to fight, as Sun-Tzu also says fight it to win quickly and decisively.

Which side should fight a war that way? The side you favor? Or the other side? Or both sides?

Since you lack the guts to answer my question, I'll answer yours. Your question really is, is war moral. The answer to that is No. It is wrong to spill innocent blood for any reason. As I pointed out Sun-Tzu said the best way to win a war is to never fight it. He was so right on that point. When the dogs of war are let loose, they aren't going to determine whose innocent and guilty, they are going to kill destory and mame. That's a fact of war. It's a fact that any military leader worth his salt knows.

The point that stands above everything else here is that the actions of one can affect so many. The actions Hilter and his cohorts took the world to war and killed millions of innocent people. The paranoia of Stalin caused the death of millions of innocent people and on and one the carnage it goes.

The actions of a nation's leaders can have devastating consequences. That is why, at least here in the United States we need to examine the moral charactor of those we are going to elect to office. Instead of electing them because they promise a few bangles and a couple of dollars, we need to examine their motives and their morals. If we did this, neither of the Bushs, Clinton, or Obama would have been elected, nor would the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastart, Newt Gingrich, to name a few.

This is why I push as hard as I do about moral absolutes. In our quest to act wise and intelligent we have made ourselves fools. We have watered down morality to the point they really don't exist anymore. War alone proves that moral absolutes do exist and that without moral absolutes the result can be horrible.

This isn't a matter of whose absolutes we use. Moral absolutes exist beyond man. Man never determines what is absolute, he just determines which one's he'll accept and which he will reject. That doesn't remove the moral absolute it just means man will face the consequences of his decisions.

Again, Ziggy, the question is, is it morally wrong to shed innocent blood, the answer is either yes or no.

by SamCogar Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:51 am

Cato wrote:War itself isn't moral and is to be avoided if at all possible. If you want to avoid war you have two options to do so. You either appease yor enemy, which is a sure fire way to destruction, or you arm youself and make it very clear that if attacked you will attack in return, with one purpose in mind to destory your enemy and break his will to wage war. It isn't pretty and it isn't what many want to hear, but it is a fact of life.

Willy, it is the same when it comes to spanking the ass of a disobedient child.

It isn't pretty and it isn't what many want to hear, but it is a fact of life if one expects a child to mature into a well mannered, self supporting, productive citizen.

.

by SamCogar Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:12 am

Cato wrote:
ziggy wrote: Which side should fight a war that way? The side you favor? Or the other side? Or both sides?

Your question really is, is war moral.

NO, it is NOT "is war moral".

His question was asinine and stupid for even a semi-intelligent mature adult to be asking.

And he is not about to explain his real reason for doing so or admitting said if accused of said real reason.

"Little ends of nothing" ...... never amount to anything of importance.

And such people put a "bad taste" in my mouth that's no different than if they had peed in my beer.

.

by **Stephanie** Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:58 am

Cato,

The only time violence is acceptable is in self defense. This includes war. So yes, sometimes innocent blood is spilled, and while I find it horrific I cannot agree with your premise that war is never moral or justifiable. Sometimes war is moral and sometimes to end their innocent civilians by the perpetrators those defending themselves have no choice but to "spill the blood of innocents".

The US was morally justified in retaliating against Japan with a nuclear strike. Something had to be done to prevent the Japanese from killing Americans. I don't like that it happened, but there is no doubt that it saved American lives, so it was the morally correct thing to do. For me, that is a moral absolute and I didn't get that from any religious text. It is my own code of moral ethics that has developed over many years of life experience combined with my knowledge of of not only Japanese aggression towards America and other nations during that era, but of empire building, war-mongering lunatics throughout modern human history.

by **Stephanie** Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:59 am

ps........

I apologize if Sam thinks I peed in his beer, it wasn't my intent.

And.........I changed my signature tag with a quote that sums up my moral asolute on violence in general.

by Sponsored content