ART somehow believes that Pat Tillman and Mohammad Atta were ethical equals. In my opinion you don't need to be Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter to see that Tillman was a Hero and Atta was murdering scum. I'm wondering how many here are blind to the fact that objective evil and objective good can and do exist.
Pat Tillman and Mohammad Atta: Ethical Equals?
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
I don't think Mohammad Atta himself believes he is ethical. I think ART believes that Atta believes he is ethical. Big difference.
We really don't need much more proof of the terrible decline in the schools of this country than the fact that we have large numbers of people who can't tell the difference between a hero and murdering scum.
So true. The two didn't belong in the same world, let alone the same sentence. Perhaps ART should sue the schools he attended. Actually, perhaps the rest of us could start a class action against them for the emotional distress ART's caused us with his rantings, a proximate cause of which was clearly his faulty education. Mav, I nominate you to serve as lead plaintiff.
I can see that few people here spent any time in secular ethics classes, but rather they spent their time in religious institutions absorbing some religious leader's concept of ethics.
Americans love to justify, rationalize, and preach holiness.
When they come up against an equal force emotionally, if not stronger emotionally...like a hungry new fighter against a fat and spoiled champion, they don't fare as well as expected.
Until we have absolute code of ethics for every given situation (Islam has strong ethical codes with strong punishments) each situation has its own situational ethics.
Until a person can see his opponent's point of view, his opponent's cause, and understand how his opponent feels the way he does, he will never fully defeat his opponent when it is something like Islamic fundamentalism.
It is intoxicating to feel certain about ethical situations, and the elixir of self righteousness that people are drunk on in this country has created a form of alcoholism/denial that is a genuine problem, often seen in great societies of the past who fell.
Americans love to justify, rationalize, and preach holiness.
When they come up against an equal force emotionally, if not stronger emotionally...like a hungry new fighter against a fat and spoiled champion, they don't fare as well as expected.
Until we have absolute code of ethics for every given situation (Islam has strong ethical codes with strong punishments) each situation has its own situational ethics.
Until a person can see his opponent's point of view, his opponent's cause, and understand how his opponent feels the way he does, he will never fully defeat his opponent when it is something like Islamic fundamentalism.
It is intoxicating to feel certain about ethical situations, and the elixir of self righteousness that people are drunk on in this country has created a form of alcoholism/denial that is a genuine problem, often seen in great societies of the past who fell.
Okay ART, tell us which school of ethics espouses the view that killing civillians and soldiers is morally equivalent.
Do you see any moral difference between the two?
Until we have absolute code of ethics for every given situation (Islam has strong ethical codes with strong punishments) each situation has its own situational ethics.
Islam has strongly respected ethical codes (by its adherents). In my opinion -- and that's really as far as you ever get in debating ethics -- Islam's ethics are a pile of dogshit.
Until a person can see his opponent's point of view, his opponent's cause, and understand how his opponent feels the way he does, he will never fully defeat his opponent when it is something like Islamic fundamentalism.
I actually think I understand their position very well. I'm willing to bet I'm far better read on the topic than you are, but I could be wrong. However, after all the understanding has taken place, would you agree that it's possible to take the daring step of -- gulp -- actually declaring one side 'right' and the other 'wrong'?
It is intoxicating to feel certain about ethical situations, and the elixir of self righteousness that people are drunk on in this country has created a form of alcoholism/denial that is a genuine problem, often seen in great societies of the past who fell.
You know, I think you describe yourself very well indeed.
The idea that they are equals is insane, but perhaps I'll play dumb here and at the simplest level, here is what we have:
Tillman went to fight against people who knew he (and other's like him) were coming.
Atta went to fight against people who had no idea he was coming.
So at the simplest of most basic levels, and excluding EVERYTHING else....its quite obvious who's ethics are lacking.
Tillman went to fight against people who knew he (and other's like him) were coming.
Atta went to fight against people who had no idea he was coming.
So at the simplest of most basic levels, and excluding EVERYTHING else....its quite obvious who's ethics are lacking.
Hmmm....A thought just occured to me. I wonder if ART's irrationalities are based on race.
Hey ART: Are Pat Tillman and Timothy McVeigh ethical equals?
Hey ART: Are Pat Tillman and Timothy McVeigh ethical equals?