Birdy Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 It wasn't an argument. Just saying that because economists sign it, doesn't mean I have to take it on a plate, cut it up, chew and swallow it. I much prefer to make my own dinner.I get what you're saying. We both want the same thing and have different ways of getting there. I get involved in these threads because people try to portray those who vote Conservatives as simply not caring, and feel the need to say that's simply not true (being one of them and all). There's no point in us going around and around when ultimately we're both getting to the same place. I just want it to be clear that I care, as do others who may vote along my line of conscience.Theophrastus - I think might prefer deficit to a lack of health care as well. Just saying that the NDP promises too much and ultimately something's going to break somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 Unless of course, he breaks his ultimate promise, and goes into deficit.Neither Layton nor Harper should have made such an irresponsible promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 (edited) I get involved in these threads because people try to portray those who vote Conservatives as simply not caring, and feel the need to say that's simply not true (being one of them and all).Have you got why I rip so hard on your need to say that man's nature is good yet? If man has a nature at all, that presupposes a creation that took this into account and therefore is a religious explanaition requiring a supreme consciousness. I'm not saying this is wrong... and I REALLY would not want to tell anyone what to believe... I mean this from my heart. but...There is no place in my government for religious decision making. And especially not in my economy. Edited October 18, 2008 by Guest this obviously does not mean that I think these people don't care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 18, 2008 Report Share Posted October 18, 2008 (edited) Religion forum please. I'm not religious, but what if I were right and man was inherently good, and you were wrong, and man was not born without a nature whatsoever. What happens then? Governments in a democracy are ultimately a representation of their people. Edited October 18, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted October 20, 2008 Report Share Posted October 20, 2008 (edited) I missed this... If we are inherently ANYTHING, good or bad, we logically are created by a consciousness, something with a will to create, something that makes decisions. You're arguement that you aren't religious does us no good if the evidence is to the contrary. If you're right, there is a God. I still don't want him in office. I'm not saying your a Christian, I'm just sayin'.Lawyers, please?Will of the people or not, crusades are wrong, n'est pas? Edited October 20, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 What if the crusade came by way of home-baked goodness and smiles and hugs? You'll be a believer my friend! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 ps. Christians believe in that whole mortal sin thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 ps. Christians believe in that whole mortal sin thing. Speak for youself, lady! Them's fightin' words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 I really am not saying your Christian!I am simply saying that there is an implication to your statement... change "good" to "love" and I'm not arguing. We are better adapted to get along than not, but it doesn't mean that we get along because we're good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 right... because of everything we learn post-birth. i'm impossible, i know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorgnor Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Babies are jealous before they can crawl, it might be genetic, but there is no reason to use an imaginary when the truth hasn't been arrived on yet. To suppose "goodness" is to support an ethic of "God" or at the least "supreme consciousness". There's no place for that in government precisely because it is the most subjective of understandings. (Who[']s[e] understanding?) Here's the paradox of the religious right... The term "conservative" in scientific language is the most apt law for denying the existence of god. An honest "scientist" or philosopher in classical terms is someone who is necesarily progressive, having to constantly accept new truths. In our time, a socially conservative "scientist" feels that we must constantly preserve traditions for the "good" of the people. How exactly does one remain honest to the pursuit of real knowledge (political science) if we sit on false hypotheses like balloons when they've already been popped? We're sitting in shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_rawk Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Can I offer a comprimise?People understand human nature as inherently 'good' precisely because it happens to be their nature. Thus, as you say, it is subjective, but suffers no more disqualification as being 'good' because of that subjectivity. Ever try to get someone to admit that they were wrong?Our nature is an accident of biology, and it is good to us, because it is our nature. Our nature could be otherwise, and then, too, it would be good to us.The goodness of mankind isn't depedendent on some thoughtful creationist, it is dependent on our own subjectivity and biological chauvinism. We will always be good in our own eyes, because we will always be the brain behind the judgement behind those eyes.From where I stand, it seems like you and Birdy are saying the same thing, just with different words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Sorry, but if the truth hasn't been arrived on yet, than yours and my points are both subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velvet Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Never has a clearer post been followed by a murkier one. At least not without Canned Beats being involved. Kudos all around, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdy Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 (edited) Compromise taken D! And thank you too. (didn't see your post before) Edited October 22, 2008 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now