Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Baron Huntroyde)
    I nevr used the word illegal, but it clearly should be illegal to put 2000+ people on the felon list who should not be there and then allow the election to continue without them.
    it is illegal to put them on knowing they are not felons and with the intention of preventing them from voting.

    it is not illegal to put them on the list and a proportion are later found not to be felons and thus missed out on voting.

    no evidence of the former exists, in the case of the 2001 elections
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    #10 He is the only President since the founding of the UN to essentially tell that organization it is irrelevant. He said: "The conduct of the Iraqi regime is a threat to the authority of the United Nations, and a threat to peace. Iraq has answered a decade of UN demands with a decade of defiance. All the world now faces a test, and the United Nations a difficult and defining moment. Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?" We all know the outcome and the answer.

    So he ignores the legal and democratic route and this is a positive? the last time people ignored a body such as the UN we ended up with the world wars.
    amazing. you post a quote and then your comment bares no relation to it. incidentally he is both right and widely supported in this view.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)

    thanks for letting us know. why challenge anything when its clear you believe everything is flawless. i have highlighted my issues with your statements, quoted them and provided my own theories. i ve backed them up with logical reductions, examples and dictionary definitions. there is little i can do in this circumstance whereby you wish me to critique logic that is in your eyes "flawless" and any flaw is a result of my own "misunderstanding".

    You actually only made one criticism, which I will come to in a moment, everything else was irrelevant/incorrect.


    it should be clear by now that i disagree with the second point. whereby you make the assumption that in effecting the welfare of a person, the decision thus becomes one of morality.

    You still don't understand

    the point of logic is to reduce an argument to absolute terms, that is to say, beyond refutation. these flawless points clearly arent as they may still be reduced further.

    I know what it is, thanks.

    unless you can explain to me why the second statement should be held as true, this logic collapses.
    Ok I'm going to explain this one final time, if you don't believe it I sincerely think something's wrong with you.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    ZIZERO,

    I think people in europe have a different approach in determining what is ethical and what is not. I think, in europe, people will always assume his ethics are not valid because of the way he simplifies things. Everything is black and white with Bush. There are no shades of grey. Something is either good or evil. Europeans like to analyse everything to death. I know because I've travelled all over the world and been to several European countries. I think that, sometimes, when you are wishy-washy about what is right and wrong it can sometimes make you a less effective leader.

    As for Bush's moral justifications for the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq...I'm not sure where you people come up with the 10,000 civilians. I don't think that's an accurate number and I challenge someone to find a credible source that supports those numbers. If you are talking about people that are a part of a militia, that's a different story. In that case, I would agree that 10,000 is probably an accurate number. Numbers are a whole other discussion, however.

    I think he genuinely wanted to help the people of Iraq be getting rid of the most evil man since Hitler and Stalin. It may lead to a lot of people in Europe being angry with him, but sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

    A lot of people on these forums seem to be under the impression that the Bush administration has decided on banning stem cell research, hurting generations of people that could be helped by new discoveries. The administration had to decide whether to allow federal funds to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A lot of these embryos already exist. They were the product of in vitro fertilization. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children. If they're going to be destroyed anyway, Bush figured they could be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives? The United States has a long record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life and I think this decision is not going change that.

    I don't see any moral inconsistancies here. Both decisions are difficult, but both will save lifes in the years to come.

    ZIZERO, you asked me if I happen to be involved in any way with the Bush campaign. I probably seem like I am because I know so much about American politics. I only seem like I know a lot about US politics because I live in here and am naturally going to be more in tune with what is going on here than someone across the pond.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    amazing. you post a quote and then your comment bares no relation to it. incidentally he is both right and widely supported in this view.
    and at which point do i say hes wrong or that the view is that of a minority?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you should both nip along to the global warming thread where it was discussed.
    i'm ok here thanks, it seems like a relevant point to the debate everyone is having.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    and at which point do i say hes wrong or that the view is that of a minority?
    you dont. thats why i start the sentence with 'incidentally...'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lepr)
    Ok I'm going to explain this one final time, if you don't believe it I sincerely think something's wrong with you
    i wait in anticipation.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    you dont. thats why i start the sentence with 'incidentally...'
    It just seems a rather obvious statement,I dont think anyone will disagree that Bush did as Made in the USA states or that he was/is widely supported for doing so. As for my comment baring no relation to his previous statement... The disregarding of the UN was being put forward as a positive act, i pointed out the repercussions of a similiar act to counter this judgement. I thought it was fairly obvious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    i'm ok here thanks, it seems like a relevant point to the debate everyone is having.
    the decision to reject Kyoto was nothing to do with Bush's lack of desire to protect the environment. a wish to see emissions reduced can be manifested in ways other than barmy, economically unsound protocols.

    if you want to discuss his lack of interest in reducing emissions, fire away, but Kyoto is rocky ground to start on.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    ZIZERO,

    I think people in europe have a different approach in determining what is ethical and what is not. I think, in europe, people will always assume his ethics are not valid because of the way he simplifies things. Everything is black and white with Bush. There are no shades of grey. Something is either good or evil. Europeans like to analyse everything to death. I know because I've travelled all over the world and been to several European countries. I think that, sometimes, when you are wishy-washy about what is right and wrong it can sometimes make you a less effective leader.

    As for Bush's moral justifications for the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq...I'm not sure where you people come up with the 10,000 civilians. I don't think that's an accurate number and I challenge someone to find a credible source that supports those numbers. If you are talking about people that are a part of a militia, that's a different story. In that case, I would agree that 10,000 is probably an accurate number. Numbers are a whole other discussion, however.
    Come on, even Vienna accetps the 10,000 figure.
    http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
    I think he genuinely wanted to help the people of Iraq be getting rid of the most evil man since Hitler and Stalin. It may lead to a lot of people in Europe being angry with him, but sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    ... and he was willing to accept the death of innocents for that end. Fair enough, but inconsistant with his policy of banning federal funding for stem-cell research.
    A lot of people on these forums seem to be under the impression that the Bush administration has decided on banning stem cell research, hurting generations of people that could be helped by new discoveries. The administration had to decide whether to allow federal funds to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos. A lot of these embryos already exist. They were the product of in vitro fertilization. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are planted in the mother. Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother and born, and are today healthy children. If they're going to be destroyed anyway, Bush figured they could be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives? The United States has a long record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life and I think this decision is not going change that.
    This is not the point. I am discussing the fact that he banned federal funding for stem-cell research.

    I don't see any moral inconsistancies here. Both decisions are difficult, but both will save lifes in the years to come.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    It just seems a rather obvious statement,I dont think anyone will disagree that Bush did as Made in the USA states or that he was/is widely supported for doing so. As for my comment baring no relation to his previous statement... The disregarding of the UN was being put forward as a positive act, i pointed out the repercussions of a similiar act to counter this judgement. I thought it was fairly obvious.
    i apologise, i misread the initial line of point 10. it does makes sense now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Come on, even Vienna..
    hehe, whats that meant to mean!?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Vienna, what do you think about my post #97?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    hehe, whats that meant to mean!?
    If you and I agree on something, you could equate it with "universal agreement"...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Vienna, what do you think about my post #97?
    it was a big one, i havent had time to respond because im trying to work. ill give you a response as soon i can.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    If you and I agree on something, you could equate it with "universal agreement"...
    hehe, but do i agree with this? indeed, you know im a stickler for accuracy where possible.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it was a big one, i havent had time to respond because im trying to work. ill give you a response as soon i can.
    Okay, thanks... Just wanted to make sure, it wasn't all in vain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    Okay, thanks... Just wanted to make sure, it wasn't all in vain.
    no, i started replying but will leave it for when ive got time. i didnt miss it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok we all accept that we can't be certain of anything, our existence, morality etc. But, when we enter debate, unless it's over philosophy, we bypass these problems. So, when you say stem cell research is wrong, you've overlooked that you can't verify a stem cell even exists, you make that leap, everyone does, you, me and George Bush. Yes, we could conceive some incredibly abstract moral system where humans were not relevant, but people think in two modes. Only one is practical and is used for debate. Otherwise, everytime we entered a discussion we'd start off with the same metaphysical/ethical problems, and never get to the meat of the issue. So I think I, and most people including yourself, go into a debate about right and wrong assuming it is connected to humans.
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
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.