Inuzuka Skysword

You act as though "millions of deaths" is what one should be afraid of. If people sign up for the military, they are choosing to fight. There goes a piece of those "millions of deaths." Next we have the government that initiated force on us. Are you telling me that it would be smart to let them use force on us as if it was nothing? Where the hell is the logic in that? The only smart thing to do is use force back. When I mean use force, I don't mean that we should be playing "find the bad guys." I mean that those who seem to support that government should go down with it. America is too nice when it comes to war and that is where the casualties come from on our side. We should be shooting those who are an enemy in war, and that includes the civilians who pose a threat. The reason wars take to long is we try to be as careful as we can, thereby avoiding the fact that war is war and the enemy needs to be completely destroyed.

The end of minimum wage is good. The end of government guaranteed sanitary conditions in the workplace is good. The end of the suppression of child labor is great. The end of government hand-outs based upon health needs is excellent. I see no problem here.

Please, do explain how one can have a morality without a goal. Just one example and I will be happy. Also, expect me to find the goal that you will probably fail to mention.

I think that you basically just said, "What I want from reality is good, but it is also stupid because it isn't as great as what I want from reality."

What actually is? What is the one thing that will induce pleasure and pain in your life? Yourself.

Rand's philosophy is the ideal for living and enjoying this reality. That is because it allows man to like living, unlike the popular philosophies of this time. It is also based in logic in that she views that man's mind is the key to unlocking reality. As she says, "A=A." This represents that man can know what is beyond him in this objective reality. You are the one who claims that man cannot know parts of reality and that is infringing on this base point of logic. You say that an objective morality is not able to be found. That is saying that logic does not work in the case of morality. That is highly illogical because you deny logic's value in that sentence.

Secondly, you have no reason to believe that your selfish goals are wrong. Give me a good reason why one should believe such a thing.

bungalow

You do not know very much about war, do you?

Inuzuka Skysword

I do. I know that you all say that the wars create new enemies and such, but that is because the way the US approaches war is too humanitarian-influenced. The point is to reduce the threat to where it doesn't become much of a threat anymore. I guess wording it as "completely destroyed" was not very good, but that is what I mean.

I don't believe in bombing the hell out of every country in the world. I just think that countries which are threatening us and using force on us should have no mercy from us.

Your one-liners are greatly appreciated though. They tell me just how smart you are because the argument from intimidation is the best argument, isn't it?

bungalow

No, I'd be glad to have this discussion with you because you pretty clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one. It just doesn't take paragraphs and paragraphs to counter your claim, is all. The purpose of war is to achieve a political objective, it is a means to an end and not an end in and of itself. Wars of attrition (what you're suggesting) are wasteful, unnecessarily violent and generally ineffective. Those in command of the military know this, and that is why they don't engage in wars of attrition. You are playing armchair general and exposing a complete naivety to the purpose of war and the ways they should be effectively fought. Completely destroying your enemy does not end a war, achieving the political objective you sought to achieve in the first place, does. The problem with the current war is that there was never a decisive political objective and the war is essentially endless. My comment was directed at your assumption that destroying the enemy is an inherent objective of war--it isn't. That is an immature and naive understanding of the institution and it has caused countless problems for the United States both now and in the past. The United States decimated the Viet-Cong during the Vietnam war, but the North Vietnamese won that war because they achieved their political goals. It has nothing to do with destroying your enemy.

Son of JayJamJah

this has probably never been the reason the United States went to war.

This thread is about Ron Paul, lets get it on track or shift the discussion to the appropriate thread.

__________________
Me, Myself and I United as One

If you're posting in the music forums make sure to be thoughtful and expressive, if you're posting in the lounge ask yourself "is this something that adds to the conversation?" It's important to remember that a lot of people use each thread. You're probably not as funny or clever as you think, I know I'm not.

My Van Morrison Discography Thread

bungalow

This is the track the thread has taken, so it's right on track I would say. What does right-track think?

The Unfan

I do.

Someone who has no intent of putting effort into anything can still discern right from wrong.

I'm not sure how to reply to this because I don't even know how you came to that conclusion from reading what I posted.

That which actually exists.
This is a fairly unconnected thought it seems. If you're saying morality is based on reality and reality is where happiness is derived from than you're a hypocrite. You harped on about how nihilism is hopeless and such a thought process is nihilism.

On the other hand, if you're saying happiness is derived from self than duh. Of course happiness is derived from chemical reactions in your brain. However, doing whatever makes you happy is not always ethical.

I have three problems with this. One, you're denying that happiness can be derived from other philosophies which is certainly not true. Two, you're saying Rand's philosophy allows for happiness, which may or may not be true in some cases; personally I find it depressing. Three, you're saying that happiness is more important than what really is, therefor Rand's philosophy is better. That is pretty nihilistic thinking.
How are you defining beyond? You either made the most obvious statement ever or made an obviously false statement.
When did I say this?
Nope, I'm saying that it hasn't been found yet.
How so? If morality is based on logic and some people think more logically than others than some people will derive different morality. It seems that your argument would support subjective morality, not go against it.

I agree. The question isn't if they're right or wrong on a moral level, but if they can be obtained ethically.