Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KOH)
    Whats Does religion have to with this??????

    And you acusations of not having reason oe sense is far from truth, this is what im trying to get to, whats makes the ppl think so diffrently?

    And you say they saved muslims from the brutual leader, well what would you say if one day a muslim country decided that Bush or blair was Opressing thier ppl, would you consider that to be a Justification for us to come in and wipe out a whole country or killing 000's of the Civs? Besides, its General Knowladge that The states is who supplied Sadam with the weapons of mass destruction if it all, and :

    Lets say it wasnt the oil, Where are these WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? how come they havnt found THESE DEADLY AMOUNT of weapons he had??? If he had them, they would have found them! And, i dont know about you, But i belive that the Usa is the greatest Terrorism Nest in the world!

    P.s. I ahte to be inaccurate, so ill post later givving you some Numbers and facts!

    Oh ya, ones religion surely affects the way they think or look at things, could you deny that?
    1. Bush and Blair are leaders of democracies. As such they pay homage to the principle of political participation. There is no need to remove them by force if they opress - they can be voted out. If you don't see the difference, I dont know what to tell ya.

    2. It is NOT general knowledge that the US supplied all the weapons - they supplied SOME - but then so did France, Russia, and others. Even still, so what? what relevance does that have? Lets say you buy your son a gun, and he then goes round shooting people - do you not have an OBLIGATION to stop him?

    3. So your evidence for it being about oil is - there were no weapons? There are a million possible reasons for the war that have Nothing to do with oil.

    4. If you beleive that the US is the biggest terrorist "Nest" in the world you have a warped sense of the meaning of the word.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by superman663j7)
    I'm sorry I'll make the correction, we also have evidence that Iraq has ties with Osama. and excuse me for spelling one word wrong in my profile, that doesn't mean anything about me and how I am that I can not spell very well
    What evidence is there that there is a link between Sadam and Osama?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    who are we to judge what is right or wrong?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    who are we to judge what is right or wrong?
    If right and wrong are not objective absolutes, and instead are linguistic labels for common reactions then we are the PRECISE people to determine right and wrong. However most seem to think that morality is absolute.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    If right and wrong are not objective absolutes, and instead are linguistic labels for common reactions then we are the PRECISE people to determine right and wrong. However most seem to think that morality is absolute.
    there's too many different views from different sides so how can we judge if it is right our wrong? O_o if one boy was raised to call blue, blue. a second boy was raised to call blue, green. who is wrong? neither because the fact that the colour is the same no matter what you call it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    there's too many different views from different sides so how can we judge if it is right our wrong? O_o if one boy was raised to call blue, blue. a second boy was raised to call blue, green. who is wrong? neither because the fact that the colour is the same no matter what you call it.
    Well if everyone called Blue Blue, and one person called it green then he may be correct as far as his perspective goes - colours are NOT absolute, but he would be wrong to call it that in terms of what the term "blue" signifies linguistically. Wrong and right refers to what the majority or common conceptions of things are. If we say murder is "wrong" - its essentially a reference to a predominant view that people have about it. The point of a discussion on "right" or "wrong" is that people may higlight factual issues that convince another that in actuality - they DO think it was wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    they DO think it was wrong.
    ahhh so you say it's all down to what people think then? thought is not absolute so we could all be possibly be wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    ahhh so you say it's all down to what people think then? thought is not absolute so we could all be possibly be wrong.
    Well we cant be wrong if we are aware of all the facts and come to the conclusion its "wrong" - this is because saying it is wrong is akin to saying "I like cake" - if they do then they do.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Well we cant be wrong if we are aware of all the facts and come to the conclusion its "wrong" - this is because saying it is wrong is akin to saying "I like cake" - if they do then they do.
    so are you saying that those who have a religion is wrong? because they don't seem to have any proper facts but they always come to the conclusion that they are right.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    so are you saying that those who have a religion is wrong? because they don't seem to have any proper facts but they always come to the conclusion that they are right.
    Well now you are using a different definition for "wrong". If you say 1+1 =3 you are factually mistaken - you are "wrong". If you kill a child for the fun of it - many would say you are "wrong" morally speaking.

    TO my mind, if you say "There is a God", then you may well be factually wrong. If you say the "war is wrong" - then you are saying it does not fit with what YOU see are the correct way to act - it is by no means an absolute - but a label of personal conviction.

    Those who are religious often use unfounded factual claims - which they may be "wrong" about, to say that certain types of action are "wrong". In that way they seek to turn what is in fact a subjective evaluation into an absolute conclusion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Well now you are using a different definition for "wrong". If you say 1+1 =3 you are factually mistaken - you are "wrong". If you kill a child for the fun of it - many would say you are "wrong" morally speaking.

    TO my mind, if you say "There is a God", then you may well be factually wrong. If you say the "war is wrong" - then you are saying it does not fit with what YOU see are the correct way to act - it is by no means an absolute - but a label of personal conviction.

    Those who are religious often use unfounded factual claims - which they may be "wrong" about, to say that certain types of action are "wrong". In that way they seek to turn what is in fact a subjective evaluation into an absolute conclusion.
    in other words, who are we to judge what is right or wrong?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    in other words, who are we to judge what is right or wrong?
    As I said - if you accept that right and wrong are not absolutes, but are personal statements on how an at measures up to your personal standards - then we are the VERY people to judge it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    As I said - if you accept that right and wrong are not absolutes, but are personal statements on how an at measures up to your personal standards - then we are the VERY people to judge it.
    kinda defies the point of calling something right or wrong >_<
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    kinda defies the point of calling something right or wrong >_<
    Not really - the debate works to say WHY people have those convictions - and that in turn can convince others that those are valid reasons. As such we can change people's minds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Not really - the debate works to say WHY people have those convictions - and that in turn can convince others that those are valid reasons. As such we can change people's minds.
    which is why we shouldn't judge what is right or wrong :/
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    which is why we shouldn't judge what is right or wrong :/
    what do you mean "judge?"
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    what do you mean "judge?"
    example
    i kill a cow, i cook it, i eat it. that's RIGHT
    i kill a human, i cook it, i eat it. that's WRONG

    a cow thinks and so does a human. a human is just as nutritious and perhaps as delicious as the cow. so how come it's RIGHT to kill a cow to eat and not a human?

    we shouldn't say what is right or wrong.

    we can't say it's wrong to eat humans when it's right to eat cows.
    eat cows, don't eat humans. no right or wrong in that sentence! ><
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    example
    i kill a cow, i cook it, i eat it. that's RIGHT
    i kill a human, i cook it, i eat it. that's WRONG

    a cow thinks and so does a human. a human is just as nutritious and perhaps as delicious as the cow. so how come it's RIGHT to kill a cow to eat and not a human?

    we shouldn't say what is right or wrong.

    we can't say it's wrong to eat humans when it's right to eat cows.
    eat cows, don't eat humans. no right or wrong in that sentence! ><
    Of course we can...

    "I think it is morally wrong to eat people, as it involves killing a sentient being who is sufficently aware and intellegent to warrant protection"

    "Therefore eating people is to me, morally wrong".

    Of course, there's no objective morality - but there IS subjective and relative morality. And that can be discussed quite openly. It is by no means an empty debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawzzzzzz)
    Of course we can...

    "I think it is morally wrong to eat people, as it involves killing a sentient being who is sufficently aware and intellegent to warrant protection"

    "Therefore eating people is to me, morally wrong".

    Of course, there's no objective morality - but there IS subjective and relative morality. And that can be discussed quite openly. It is by no means an empty debate.
    so it's all right to eat a human who is brain damaged and is incapable of awareness and intelligence? O_o
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by operato)
    so it's all right to eat a human who is brain damaged and is incapable of awareness and intelligence? O_o
    If you think it is ... then you can claim so - you and Peter Singer. Although as he showed - its a harder thing to claim than do.

    My point is that others can claim they see it as immoral. If you acept that it is relative - then you can have the debate.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.