giraffo Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 But all that about lying and what not has more to do with you being in disagreement with him on this issues.is there really a point for you to keep incessantly making inane arguments? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 is there really a point for you to keep incessantly making inane arguments? Is there really a point to calling someone a lying sack of dog shit when in actuality you simply disagree with them? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
giraffo Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Is there really a point to calling someone a lying sack of dog shit when in actuality you simply disagree with them? I thought it was pretty clear that he didn't disagree but thought that the things he was doing wasnt merely bad policy but generally poor moral choices (i.e. sending people off to die in Iran too) thereby making him somone he viewed as not the most prime individual to share a beer with. it's like saying you disagreed with Hitler but that doesn't mean he wasn't a sack of shit or something. he's going based on a moral compass, not on a political one. I can disagree with Obama all I want, but I don't think he's a sack of shit. If he was trying to force the idea of war down people's throats on false claims that shows more of a character problem and not so much a policy. I think you're just overly nitpicky during these arguments for the sake of being nitpicky, sometimes. I don't see the point in prodding him every time he passes a moral judgement on somone for his own reasons. even then, he could still explain his judgements and you probably wouldn't agree, only causing another argument to ensue about why you disagree and why his reasons for holding judgement are "wrong." Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 But all that about lying and what not has more to do with you being in disagreement with him on this issues. I'm not really sure if you mean that I just disagree with him and he's not really lying, or if you mean that my problem with him is because of his lying and not his position on the issues, but either way you're wrong. He's wrong on the issues in ways that can have dire consequences, and he lies about them on top of it. He's morally reprehensible for both reasons. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 What does he lie about? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Also, how is he wrong on the issues? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Here's one really big lie. I'll dig up more if you want. Lieberman claims on Meet the Press that the people we're fighting in Iraq are the people who attacked us on 9/11 He's wrong on the issues because he believes in a doctrine of starting wars with country's that didn't attack us, he's pro-torture, and he seems as though he'd be content to be fighting in Iraq forever. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 That doesn't seem "wrong" to me. It seems like you disagree with him. There is a difference. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 You're right, the disagreement over whether or not it's okay to attack another country for no reason is completely equivilent to any other policy disagreement. Do you think that there are any positions on any issues that are just wrong or are all positions on all issues equally credible? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 You're right, the disagreement over whether or not it's okay to attack another country for no reason is completely equivilent to any other policy disagreement. Not really. But it is still a disagreement, inasmuch as there are people out there, like Leiberman, who think a policy of preemptive aggression is the correct way to deal with our foreign affairs. You disagree with him, yes. He isn't wrong. You are going to have a hell of a time convincing me any position on an issue is wrong, since their is no universal truth or morality. For my thoughts on this, see that Ryan Adams thread. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
caliber66 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 You're really splitting hairs, bobbob. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Semantics are a big deal to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Not really. But it is still a disagreement, inasmuch as there are people out there, like Leiberman, who think a policy of preemptive aggression is the correct way to deal with our foreign affairs. You disagree with him, yes. He isn't wrong. There are people out there who think that a policy of flying planes into buildings is the correct way to deal with their foreign affairs. You disagree with them, yes, but apparently they aren't wrong. It's just a disagreement. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I have this thing where I have a real problem calling anyone wrong for their beliefs because I disagree with them. Sorry. There have been a lot of problems in this world from one person thinking they are "right" and the other being "wrong" and the "right" person having to take care of the person who is "wrong". That kind of zealotism doesn't appeal to me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Even if they're batshit insane beliefs? Seriously, you have to draw a line somewhere. There have been a lot of problems in this world from one person thinking they are "right" and the other being "wrong" and the "right" person having to take care of the person who is "wrong". That kind of zealotism doesn't appeal to me. I don't disagree with this, although I think by going after my position rather than Lieberman's, you're looking to the wrong place. My viewpoint may not be universal, but there is still a difference between a viewpoint based in reality that can change with new information, and someone who just thinks they're right no matter what, even when the evidence proves otherwise (see everything Lieberman has said over the last 5 years about Iraq or Iran). Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Some things are universal. Murder is wrong and anyone who disagrees with that is generally considered to be (in the very least) mentally ill if they disagree. Starting a war unprovoked is likewise universally considered to be wrong, unless of course it's your own country doing it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Man, I hate Lieberman. What a hack. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I really don't get the hatred of Leiberman, but whatever. If he had never been a democrat, he would be a non-figure to most democrats. Some things are universal. Murder is wrong and anyone who disagrees with that is generally considered to be (in the very least) mentally ill if they disagree. Starting a war unprovoked is likewise universally considered to be wrong, unless of course it's your own country doing it. Both of those things have been done so much in the history of the world that it's hard to say they are universally considered wrong. At some point, we as a race have to start actually practicing what we preach, don't we? I'm not saying I don't think those things are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are for everyone. There are some who would argue that murder and war are natural outcomes of living in our society. I'm looking forward to the comments where people take two extremes to try to prove to me that I don't actually believe what I do. That is always a fun discussion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I have this thing where I have a real problem calling anyone wrong for their beliefs because I disagree with them. Sorry.Beliefs often are demonstrably wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Beliefs often are demonstrably wrong.Not so much when you are dealing with morality. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cryptique Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Wow, this whole college student thing has really gotten to you. Don't worry, it'll pass, and you'll end up comfortably bitter and jaded like the rest of us. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
nicburto Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Why would Obama care? Seriously. You assume he doesn't care about baseball just because he's half-black? How dare you sir! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 Wow, this whole college student thing has really gotten to you. Don't worry, it'll pass, and you'll end up comfortably bitter and jaded like the rest of us. I can't wait. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I really wish that I could just write off massive crimes against humanity as just simple policy disagreements. I'd feel a whole lot better about the world. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted April 3, 2008 Share Posted April 3, 2008 I'm not saying I don't think those things are wrong, but that doesn't mean they are for everyone. There are some who would argue that murder and war are natural outcomes of living in our society. That would be the naturalistic fallacy, or, the idea that what is found in nature is necessarily good. It is, in part, the basis or justification for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Nowadays, biologists denounce the naturalistic fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave -- as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be ok. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.