Is your understanding on Nihilism sound? Because, technically speaking, a Nihilist doesn't care about anything. If Mad was consistently Nihilistic, then she wouldn't be so passionate about any view whatsoever.

 

 

 

I don't believe in pure views, insane, and I'm not defending Nihilism here either, I don't agree with it.

 

My point here is on people's views. I don't believe people who tag themselves as part of one ideological/religious/political group must agree with every idea that group supports. You can be a Catholic and disagree with celibacy, you can be an "Agnostic, thank God" or a Democrate who finds death penalty acceptable.

 

Mad might agree with Nihilism in most situations, but she doesn't have to, necessarialy, blindly follow it's set of ideas. True Nihilism is "utopical". It's impossible to truly don't care about anything.

My point here is on people's views. I don't believe people who tag themselves as part of one ideological/religious/political group must agree with every idea that group supports. You can be a Catholic and disagree with celibacy, you can be an "Agnostic, thank God" or a Democrate who finds death penalty acceptable.

 

 

 

In the case of Nihilism and moral relativism however, there isn't "every idea" to agree to. There is only one ideal. Moral relativism is ironically, a black-and-white belief. Either morals are relative, or they aren't. Either things matter, or they don't (Nihilism). I don't see a middle ground here.

 

 

 

Catholocism and political views (the examples you gave) have many beliefs associated with them, while I believe moral relativism and Nihilism do not.

I consider quoting wikipedia going really low, but it's late and I'm getting sleepy. :wink:

 

 

 

Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.

 

 

 

I honestly don't believe you can consider yourself a thinking being if you just take a previously built ideology and just apply it to your life, without any modifications or interpretation whatsoever.

I consider quoting wikipedia going really low, but it's late and I'm getting sleepy. :wink:

 

 

 

Nihilists generally assert some or all of the following: there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator, a "true morality" is unknown, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no truth, and no action is known to be preferable to any other.

 

 

 

I honestly don't believe you can consider yourself a thinking being if you just take a previously built ideology and just apply it to your life, without any modifications or interpretation whatsoever.

 

 

 

Just out of curiosity, but did mad ever call himself a nihilist or a cultural relativist? If he did, then he doesn't have a leg to stand on because you can't call yourself a nihilist unless you hold to all of their beliefs. That's like saying "I'm a Christian but I don't believe Jesus is the world's Savior." It makes no sense at all.

Piano, I don't know if she has, however, I believe you can be a Christian without believing in everything christianity states, for the above reasons. Of course it would be pointless to believe it without believing in Jesus, but just because he's such a key factor in the ideology.

 

You can disbelief minor factors and still be a Christian, in my opinion.

 

 

 

Barihawk: That was some serious lag. :shock:

Mad, your relativistic/nihilistic philosophies preclude any kind of objective argument coming from you, in my opinion :P.

 

 

 

Since you believe in relativism/nihilism, I find it hard to believe that you can take an objective stance on anything, and let alone care about anything. If you truly are nihilistic, why do you care? If you truly are relativistic, then why do you think that this is morally wrong? I read your argument, but an objective argument from subjectiveness just doesn't work.

 

 

 

Insane, I believe Mad is much more flexible on her beliefs than what you are saying nihilists are. After all, there's no need to get bipolar and blind to other points of view in order to be a nihilist.

 

 

 

Is your understanding on Nihilism sound? Because, technically speaking, a Nihilist doesn't care about anything. If Mad was consistently Nihilistic, then she wouldn't be so passionate about any view whatsoever.

 

 

 

Exactly. It is completely impossible to be a practical nihilist.

 

 

 

My favourite quote by a nihilist is: ""

 

 

 

How can you function in society when there is nothing? It's clearly not possible in the slightest. And thus I don't consider myself a practical nihilist; merely a theoretical one, because when I analyze what I care about and what my beliefs boil down to, it does tend to be nothing. Not hedonism, because that's a formal system too - just no system.

 

 

 

Anyway, now I've digressed from my own topic, so... sorry :D

I believe that the use of this bill can be justified however only after it's use and that's exactly the problem we have. Can you dissagree with the use of it if it'd prevented 911?

 

Wouldn't you be angry if you lost someone who's very close to you just because the government wasn't allowed to act? What would you do if someone close to you was kidnapped and you had control over someone who knows where he is and how the person close to you could be saved?

 

 

 

I would use force, brute force. My emotions would justify the use of it for me.

 

If you've ever seen 24, think back, did you feel bad for the bad guys when jack was getting them to talk? I sure didn't and I wasn't supposed to.

 

 

 

So, the use of it is justified by the possible result. I'm sure that everyone has done things that could only be justified afterwards. Would you trust a good friend to do something that involves you that can only be justified afterwards? Yes.

 

Would you accept it if a total stranger would do something that greatly involved you that he could only justify afterwards? I wouldn't.

 

Would you accept it if the government would do something that could greatly help you but could greatly endanger a total stranger while it could only be justified afterwards?

 

Would you accept it if it was the other way around?

 

 

 

On an emotional level this bill is justified. On a rational level it is a rediculous thing. A government should act based on rational decision.

 

It seems to me however that the american government has made many decisions after 911 that are accepted on an emotional and not a rational level and that's scary.

 

 

 

I'll end my post with two explanations of bills passed over 73 years ago that resulted in one of the worst dictatorships we've seen. They should speak for themselves.

 

 

 

wikipedia[/url]":398ha98e]The Reichstag Fire Decree (Reichstagsbrandverordnung in German) is the common name of the decree issued by German president Paul von Hindenburg in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in key positions of the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and was used to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.

 

 

 

wikipedia[/url]":398ha98e]The Enabling Act (ErmÃÆÃâÃâächtigungsgesetz in German) was passed by Germany's parliament (the Reichstag) on March 23, 1933. It was the second major step after the Reichstag Fire Decree through which the Nazis obtained dictatorial powers using largely legal means. The Act enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag.

 

 

 

The formal name of the Enabling Act was Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich ("Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich").

Of course it would be pointless to believe it without believing in Jesus, but just because he's such a key factor in the ideology.

 

You can disbelief minor factors and still be a Christian, in my opinion.

 

 

 

 

I kind of agree with what you said there. I do believe that Jesus was real and I do believe that he was a brilliant person. What I don't beleive is that he was the son of god, he rose from the dead, he made blind people see etc. The key point of christianity for me is 'Forgive those who tresspass against you' and 'Love thy neighbour'. Those and other morals make up a christian, not just going to church.

 

 

 

Back on topic >.<

 

 

 

Ugh. Disgusting. Torturing people is in my opinion, the worst crime. It's pointless too. If someone confesses under torture, you can't be sure if they are being honest or they just want the pain to stop. And the thought of innocents being tortured really gets my back up. How the american government gets away with this stuff I don't know.

^^^Are you saying that having those morals such as "love thy neighbor" and things like that make you a christian? In christianity, every thing comes second to accepting Jesus as your savior, even those.^^^

I'm slightly undecided over this one. In principle, i'm not entirely against torture. However I don't think it's as effective as it should be for the pain that it creates. But I also believe in tough justice. My stance on human rights is also fairly confused. If someone is innocent, I believe that their human rights should be defended without question. However, I personally believe that when someone deliberately violates a persons most basic human right, the right to life, then the killer violates all their human rights. Of course this is based on circumstance and evidence, and in practice is hard to implicate. No system of judgement can ever really be 100% perfect, and so that's why I don't really believe in the death penalty in suspicious cases. Judgement should be circumstancial.

 

 

 

So to relate this to the topic, if someone like Osama Bin Laden was caught, for all I care torture him as much as you want, (and here's where I might get controversial) even if it's only for the sole purpose of a punishment for what he has done, and not for the extraction of information to save future lives. To me, he has foregone all his human rights, and so why should we defend his?

 

 

 

Of course this is a dangerous principle to appy to all suspected terrorists, because we can't be certain with all of them, and the idea of innocents being tortured really sickens me. So in the real world, I don't agree with torture, it's a dangerous power to give to a government like America's, because it could so easily make mistakes. But in principle, I don't disagree with the idea of torture.

^^^Are you saying that having those morals such as "love thy neighbor" and things like that make you a christian? In christianity, every thing comes second to accepting Jesus as your savior, even those.^^^

 

 

 

I can see where you are coming from and I do think of Jesus as a saviour of sorts. I just don't think of him as the son of god. I think that people take the Bible way too literally. Christianity IMO, is loving your neighbours as you love yourself and the Bible is the book that tells us that. I know a lot of christians who get too bogged down in praising god or praying to him, when they could be out there continuing Jesus' work. When I am old enough I plan to go do some volentery work in a homeless shelter or hospice. Doing good rather than just praying for it to happen magically.

 

 

 

Back on topic again >.<

 

 

So to relate this to the topic, if someone like Osama Bin Laden was caught, for all I care torture him as much as you want, (and here's where I might get controversial) even if it's only for the sole purpose of a punishment for what he has done, and not for the extraction of information to save future lives. To me, he has foregone all his human rights, and so why should we defend his?

 

 

 

No I disagree. Everyone should have the right not to be tortured. It's one of those things that I really really hate. The worst thing you should ever, ever have to do to another person is kill them. Torturing them, then killing them is barbaric, sick and cruel that even in the most extreme cases it shouldn't be done.

 

 

 

No system of judgement can ever really be 100% perfect, and so that's why I don't really believe in the death penalty in suspicious cases. Judgement should be circumstancial.

 

 

 

 

This I agree with. No one should ever be sentenced if they cannot prove it, and really prove it.

^^^Are you saying that having those morals such as "love thy neighbor" and things like that make you a christian? In christianity, every thing comes second to accepting Jesus as your savior, even those.^^^

 

 

 

I can see where you are coming from and I do think of Jesus as a saviour of sorts. I just don't think of him as the son of god. I think that people take the Bible way too literally. Christianity IMO, is loving your neighbours as you love yourself and the Bible is the book that tells us that. I know a lot of christians who get too bogged down in praising god or praying to him, when they could be out there continuing Jesus' work. When I am old enough I plan to go do some volentery work in a homeless shelter or hospice. Doing good rather than just praying for it to happen magically.

 

 

 

Then you're not a Christian. I'm not knocking your religion or anything, but Jesus says very clearly things like "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

 

 

 

It's fine if you dont want to believe he is your Savior - but that is the founding principle of Christianity. That would be like me moving to America from another country, claiming myself as a citizen even though I haven't been naturalized and saying, "I just don't think that being naturalized is a requirement for being a citizen. I mean, I pay taxes, I live here, I help the economy - I think people are just reading the laws too literally about being naturalized."

 

 

 

Believing that Jesus is your Savior is the fundamental point of Christianity - that's evident because it's the only point that all of the Chrsitian denominations agree on.

 

 

 

What I think is interesting is that you say loving your nieghbors as yourself is what Chrstianity is about - and your support for that is the Bible. But Jesus is the one who said that. He said the greatest command was to love the Lord with all your heart, strength, and soul - and the second greatest command was to love your neighbor as yourself. Both of those commands came from Jesus - the same person who claimed that he is the only way to get to the Lord.

 

 

 

Once again, I don't care if you want to believe in Jesus as the Savior or not. But if you don't, you're not a Christian. Just like I'm not a member of the BahÃÆÃâÃâá'ÃÆÃâÃâí faith because I don't believe in the founding principles of their religion. I agree with a lot of the things they might say about unity and kindness, but I don't believe in the validity of the prophet BahÃÆÃâÃâá'u'llÃÆÃâÃâáh - therefore, I am not a member of the BahÃÆÃâÃâá'ÃÆÃâÃâí faith. It's that simple.

 

 

 

Then you're not a Christian

 

 

 

Sort of agreed. I follow parts of Jesus' teachings, the ones that I think are practical to follow today. A sort of very very liberal Christian.

 

 

 

 

What I think is interesting is that you say loving your nieghbors as yourself is what Chrstianity is about - and your support for that is the Bible. But Jesus is the one who said that. He said the greatest command was to love the Lord with all your heart, strength, and soul - and the second greatest command was to love your neighbor as yourself. Both of those commands came from Jesus - the same person who claimed that he is the only way to get to the Lord.

 

 

 

The whole God thing is IMO just a sort of glue to stick Christianity together. As you said, it's the one thing that all Christians agree on, but it has no meaning. Praying to god wont make any difference to the world. The other part of Christianity, 'Love thy Neighbour', will make a difference. So thats what I follow.

And that's fine. But don't claim you're a Christian because you're not.

And that's fine. But don't claim you're a Christian because you're not.

 

 

 

Then what is/are he/you?

 

So to relate this to the topic, if someone like Osama Bin Laden was caught, for all I care torture him as much as you want, (and here's where I might get controversial) even if it's only for the sole purpose of a punishment for what he has done, and not for the extraction of information to save future lives. To me, he has foregone all his human rights, and so why should we defend his?

 

 

 

No I disagree. Everyone should have the right not to be tortured. It's one of those things that I really really hate. The worst thing you should ever, ever have to do to another person is kill them. Torturing them, then killing them is barbaric, sick and cruel that even in the most extreme cases it shouldn't be done.

 

 

 

I agree that your average citizen, and even most hardened criminals should never be tortured, but here we're talking about a terrorist who showed no compassion whatsoever for human life. Why should we defend his human rights? When someone is responsible for the deaths and suffering of so many people, is even death really justice?

Exactly, mercy shouldnt be given to people who target women and children.

It's pretty hardcore. I've always thought that they already use torture before.

Exactly, mercy shouldnt be given to people who target women and children.

 

 

 

The issue is that you don't know if this is a person who has really targeted women and children until after you've tortured them for information! They also don't get real trials, so there's no way to find evidence the way the rest of crime is dealt with. Why not? If our justice system is good enough for the rest of the country, why not in this case, too?

The whole Guantanamo Bay thing is so hypocritical it makes me laugh in disbelief. If any other country in the world had a Camp X-Ray equivalent the US would be all over them like German Measles.

 

 

 

I actually looked up what German Measles were. I had no idea it was another name for Rubella... :P

 

 

 

Now - what's hypocritical about it?

Probably because Guantanamo Bay is the subject of activities that the USA claim to be against? :uhh: And the legalisation of any torture is taking them another step towards being one of the governments they are fighting so hard to take out.

The issue is that you don't know if this is a person who has really targeted women and children until after you've tortured them for information! They also don't get real trials, so there's no way to find evidence the way the rest of crime is dealt with. Why not? If our justice system is good enough for the rest of the country, why not in this case, too?

 

You a such a hippy! If one of your family members was killed by a terrorist youd tihnk differntly.

Exactly, mercy shouldnt be given to people who target women and children.

 

 

 

The issue is that you don't know if this is a person who has really targeted women and children until after you've tortured them for information! They also don't get real trials, so there's no way to find evidence the way the rest of crime is dealt with. Why not? If our justice system is good enough for the rest of the country, why not in this case, too?

 

 

 

I don't think torture is fine after trial either, though. :wink:

I'm against torture of any kind. Even if it's used on a "terrorist."

The issue is that you don't know if this is a person who has really targeted women and children until after you've tortured them for information! They also don't get real trials, so there's no way to find evidence the way the rest of crime is dealt with. Why not? If our justice system is good enough for the rest of the country, why not in this case, too?

 

You a such a hippy! If one of your family members was killed by a terrorist youd tihnk differntly.

 

 

 

No, I just believe in standards. I mean, yes, I'm a hippie, but if my family member was murdered, I wouldn't support the death penalty and I wouldn't support torture. I believe that we need an objective justice system that deals with each case individually but according to preset standards, thus avoiding unfair bias.

 

 

 

These preset standards should include basic decency, i.e. not torturing someone before you even know if they're guilty :\

They are TERRORist meaning they cause terror. They fight for no country, have no rank, or serial number and are therefore not protected by the Geneva Convetion, and it should stay that way.

 

 

 

Technically perhaps the Geneva Convention does not apply to them, however practically it was written to guarantee the rights of people. Just because they aren't (officially) sanctioned by a government, and don't have a rank or serial number, it doesn't suddenly mean that they don't have human rights.

 

 

 

 

 

They're not saying it's okay to torture, they are saying it's okay to use proper interrogation methods, which to pansies may seem like torture. Have you ever seen interrogation techniques? They're uncomfortable, but no where near torture. Things like having them hold their arms above their heads and if they drop them, they have to run a distance...crap like that. If that's "torture", then arrest my 3rd grade gym teacher, because we played games like that in gym class, lol.

 

 

 

They're not saying you can go ahead and pistol whip an Iraqi, 'mmkay?

 

 

 

 

 

They kept prisoners awake for 16 days at a time, and kept prisoners in solitary confinement for months at a time. If someone did that to you, you'd break down and cry like a baby, so don't give us this "macho" bs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

America amuses me, it acts like it's under some kind of massive onslaught, attacks every hour by organised groups... and so it needs to do whatever it can to survive. Even if some innocent people get hurt or locked up for a few years... it's ok because freedom itself is at stake!! cry cry, waah waah.

 

 

 

In reality, if America actually took a high ground, and recognised that freedom is powerful and acts as its own ambassador, so doesn't need torture and poor trials to back it up, then maybe terrorism wouldn't be on the rise.