The Arab spring is in full "BLAST" agian

it is mans very first attempt to understand the world and like most first things it is filled with holes prejudices and misconceptions

Khome, I don't mean this personally... more of a rhetorical question:

If you don't think anything is worth killing over, will you kindly lay down and die when your core values are challenged?

I don't mean intellectually challenged like me saying "Killing is okay," I mean actually challenged by someone actually doing "Killing is okay."

Freedom exists. Please understand that I'm not talking about some vague notion of political freedom. I believe that we are essentially and fundamentally free by simply being human, by making choices, by making decisions. I'm not saying we should be free, I'm saying we are free to have any values we wish, to subscribe to any beliefs we wish, to choose to do anything we wish. (blah, blah, within the context of what is logically, physically, technologically, personally possible)

I understand that we can disagree, I understand that at the core there are some value systems we choose that are entirely coherent yet different from the value systems of other.

No matter how much you argue there are just some things that cannot be resolved if you cannot even agree on the source of knowledge... How do you use faith to argue with reason? How do you use reason to argue with faith?

If you cannot agree on what the source of knowledge is, how can you settle differences in what is right and what is wrong? You seem very certain that you are correct, but how do you prove it to someone who doesn't have the same understanding of proof or of reality?

And if you cannot convince someone to agree that it is good to leave you alone, what do you do? If we agree on certain fundamentals... specifically, if we can agree that reason is the only appropriate source of knowledge and we exist within an objective and shared reality from which to draw evidence, we can debate and maybe convince each other to hold some values. At least, we have the framework to do so even though we may have different interpretations of events or experiences. It isn't inevitable that we agree: different experiences, observations, perspectives, information, etc. may get in the way of agreement... but we can agree that there is some correct way of viewing things that doesn't depend on what we believe.

But if we cannot agree on something so fundamental, how can any mutual understanding be reached? Coincidence seems the only way. So here we are, either we abandon our notions of reason or they abandon their notions of faith. That's what we are talking about. You're viewing it from the perspective that we are absolutely correct, but that loses part of the context because they are viewing it from the perspective that they are correct. We are only correct to the extent reason and not faith is the appropriate source of knowledge. Don't take that for granted, recognize and understand it.

There is no way to prove reason is an appropriate source of knowledge to someone who disagrees without both of us at least agreeing that there is an objective and shared reality. There is no way to prove we live in an objective and shared reality to someone who disagrees without both of us agreeing that reason is an appropriate source of knowledge. Notice the circularity? I figure anyone who looks around sees this, but we are FREE. We can't be forced to accept anything we don't want to accept. We can't be forced to recognize anything we don't want to recognize. We can't be forced to believe anything we don't want to believe.

If there is disagreement on either count, there is no shared ground by which to establish a mutual understanding.

If we already disagree and we cannot arrive at a mutual understanding because of these differences and we both believe that we are correct, conflict is inevitable.

We are free. They are free. There is nothing that can change this. They can believe, think, and do whatever the hell they like for whatever reason they like... but I can as well.

If they want to start shit because of their beliefs, that's fine... but I don't got to accept their values and I don't got to lay down and die because of their values. They don't need to do so either.

Please understand... there will be no peace, unless one side submits to the valuations of the other. There is no reason why either side should do so within the context of each worldview. In fact, there is no reason anyone should do anything, save they think it's worth doing, within the context of human freedom.

Personally, I think reason is the only appropriate source of knowledge and that we live an objective and shared world... and I think that based on this, there is technically no correct "absolute" value system. I think that if we decide that we want to coexist with others, the best and most basic way of realizing that is to agree to recognize and respect each other's freedom. I think that if someone refuses to recognize and respect another's freedom, they cannot coexist with others. Don't start shit, there won't be shit. You know?

Should you coexist with others? That's your choice.
What should be done about those who cannot coexist with you? That's your choice.

Forcing them to submit to your value system is an option if, and that's a pretty big if, they can be convinced, debated, threatened, etc.
Killing them is merely the most complete solution.

P.S. The reason I say "I figure if there's anything worth killing each other over, it's differences in core values," is because most other things can be peacefully resolved for a better outcome than forcibly resolving them, I'm not convinced this can be peacefully resolved at all for the aforementioned reasons.

Bull.

There is only one 'race', the human race. And this is becoming more and more so by the day, via the multi-culturism we all see around us. Whats this 'others views'?

Most people would agree on moral rights and wrongs be they Christian, Musim, Buddist or sith. It's only a few extremist that act otherwise, though they probably would agree what they do is morally wrong.

Unfortunately, the very few who do cause so much grief get huge exposure, so we perceive a big evil force.

So the conclusion? The renegades of our one global society should be reined in, just as we would rein in a criminal element or a dangerous dog.

i) self preservation is a reason to kill.
ii) preservation of the human race is another.
iii) touching my car is the third.

Demonstration:

I do not accept popular opinion as a valid source of knowledge.

Most people agree that X is true.
Therefore, X is true?

The logical structure is bunk... anything most people believed was true would be true. If most people believed god was real, then god would be real. If most people believed slavery wasn't wrong, then slavery wouldn't be wrong.

Sorry, bro.

Within the context of my belief system, you must provide solid reasoning and evidence to convince me to change any particular understanding. If you cannot convince me, that's fine... as long as you don't try to force me to take action based upon your views. This is true within the context of what I believe... maybe you disagree. You can accept popular opinion as a valid source of knowledge and refuse to accept reasoning as a valid source of knowledge. You can accept popular opinion as a secondary valid source of knowledge with reason as a primary... or the other way around. I can't MAKE you agree on what is a valid source of knowledge.

Also, I'm not saying we can't agree on particulars without agreeing on other stuff... I'm saying that IF we do not agree on a particular principle AND that principle directly forces some action or inaction that is contrary to the other's beliefs AND we do not share some common ground with which to form a mutual understanding, THEN conflict is inevitable.

I'm also saying that because we are free to believe, desire, and do anything we like, it is possible that the three previous conditions are true.

I'm not even necessarily saying that this is the case with these particular current events. I'm saying that IF those previous three conditions are the case, THEN the only outcomes are submission or death.

I'm definitely NOT stating quantities or generalizing anyone of any religion. I'm say that IF those previous three conditions were the case for ANY individual, THEN ONLY for those individuals that qualify, the only outcomes are submission or death.

You need to realize, this isn't a question of what is right and what is wrong. This is a question of what is the case... and what that implies.

---------------

Furthermore, don't confuse "extremism" with "shit you don't agree with." You can't simultaneously hold an extremist position and decry extremism:
"The renegades of our one global society should be reined in, just as we would rein in a criminal element or a dangerous dog."

Or do you propose to compromise and rein in some behavior that you disagree with and allow other behavior? Or rein in some renegades and not others? Or rein in renegades part of the time and not other times?

Let's try this on for size:
"The [infidels] of our one global society should be reined in, just as we would rein in a criminal element or a dangerous dog." -- Fixed.

Let me propose an idea to you... extremism is the only way to practice your beliefs. If there is something wrong with taking s set of beliefs to the extreme, then maybe there is something wrong with the beliefs. Food for thought.

That was a very long way to say "lets agree to disagree"

I respectfully disagree with some of those statements. Maybe I dont understand exactly the point you are trying to make, but anyway as I understand what you said here is why I disagree... The reason is that if what you say is correct then there is in fact no right or wrong. In which case you can do anything without doing anything 'wrong'. There is behavior that is extreme regardless of what religion or set of beliefs you hold dear.

For example... (obviously this is a harsh example, but it makes the point) pedophilia. There is no excuse for ANY reason that can be imagined that would excuse such behavior. Therefore if your religion or set of beliefs allow for pedophilia, then your religion or set of beliefs is obviously extreme. The same is true for many other behaviors.

I understand that each individual has the right to do and believe what they want, but not when it interferes with others right to do the same. If I believe I should kill you, that obviously interferes with your right to live, therefore if my belief is that you should die it would be wrong and extreme because it interferes with your rights.

But in my opinion the world has become so terrified of pleasing everyone that many are to afraid to voice what they feel is wrong and right. "Political Correctness" has become the scourge of humankind. Long gone are the days where you were responsible for your actions. Now when somebody does do something that is in fact wrong its somebody else's fault like parents, education, environment, genetics etc...

Global society knows what is right and what is wrong.

It cannot be defined by logic, arguement, proof whatever. So Scarlets convoluted comment above is null and void.

Like I said, the vast majority of all peoples would agree that murder is wrong. If there is a rogue element then it needs to be forced to conform to the majoritys consensus.

Yes, I can agree with the political correctness problem 100%

Well, let me see if I can simplify and unpack it at the same time.

Yes, it is 100% true that I'm saying that there is no absolute right or wrong. I'm saying that relative rights and wrongs exist within the context of what we believe is valuable. It is worth noting that I'm not taking it from the standpoint of "there is someone else to blame".

However, the point I touched on at the end of the first long wall of text and definitely could have elaborated more:
"I think that if someone refuses to recognize and respect another's freedom, they cannot coexist with others."

The essential argument is that while no absolute notion of right and wrong can be proven, the conditions for coexistence can be proven so that if coexistence is valuable, then those conditions must be met.

In order for a society to function, the concession that coexistance is valuable is a necessary prerequisite. While I'm not saying that it can be demonstrated to be universally valuable, it's value as a means to an end can be demonstrated in many cases of people's differing ends.

I think it useful to make the distinction between something that has value as a means to an end and something that has value as an end in itself to be useful. A means to an end has an objectively demonstrable value because it's value is determined by relating its effectiveness at achieving the end. However, the problem with this method of determining value is that ultimately, you will either reach a dead end (the end in itself) or fall into circular reasoning. (Ex. The best way of getting in space is to use a rocket, but why the hell do we want to get in space?) People can disagree on the details of this, but ultimately there is a correct answer that is true no matter the person exists. The end in itself, the thing worth doing for no other reason than doing it, is not the same thing for everyone. Some people want to worship god, some people want to serve others, some people want to raise kids, some people want to restore classic cars, some people want to build building, some people want to play flash games, some people want to kill other people. It doesn't even need to be a single thing per person. However, the type of value that these things have is solely based on the type of value that someone gives these things. It's an entirely subjective value, the correct answer depends upon who is making the statement.

So if this is the case and we live in such a world, we're no longer looking through a lens of right and wrong. We've moved beyond them so to speak.

So let's look back to coexistence using the example of someone who likes to restore cars.

In order to restore cars, there are a certain set of conditions that must be met. If I determine it is a valuable end, I'll try to meet these conditions because I want to restore cars. Now, I need to have enough resources, I need to have enough health, and I need to be left to my own devices to actually do it. This is true of all ends in themselves. (*cough*lifelibertyproperty*cough*)

However... maybe you can see where I'm going with this... let's see the example of killing others. I need to fulfill the same set of conditions as restoring cars... BUT the end itself violates the conditions for another person. This is a contradictory end.

In one example, we can agree to create a situation where the set of conditions are mutually held in esteem so that we can go about achieving our different ends. On an individual and society level, we can achieve our ends individually or cooperatively without the need for creating conflict that jeopardizes the maintenance of this set of conditions for ourselves. The fulfillment of such an end doesn't necessarily incentivize others into preventing our fulfillment of such an end.

In the other, we cannot do so without some outside group for which we don't hold the same conditions in mutual esteem. On an individual and societal level, we create a situation where we force others into conflict and creates the need for them to deny us the conditions we require to achieve our ends. The fulfillment of such an end necessarily incentivizes others into preventing our fulfillment of such an end.

This is what is meant by contradictory ends. I intend this to demonstrate that respecting each other's freedom is the only means to coexistence AND that coexistence is valuable for the vast majority of individual ends even within the context of nihilism in ethics.

The failure to recognize each other freedom is essentially self-destructive to any end, even if the end necessitates the failure to respect each other's freedom. By not respecting the freedom of others, we create a situation where they must not respect our freedom or forfeit their individual values.

Does this matter? Someone who enjoys killing may enjoy other things as well, so while I do not say that killing is wrong, I would say that in most cases someone who enjoys killing may see that it benefits the totality of their ends in themselves that they not go around killing people indiscriminately or perhaps they take some profession (I wonder which one I'm implying >_>) where they can achieve their end in itself in a manner which does not require they do so to anyone except those whose ends forced the issue.

So I would say that it is in the context of nihilism in ethics that negative liberty (not interfering with others) really makes sense as both an objective and non-contradictory value just about no matter what you believe or value. I did establish it previously in terms of it being non-contradictory and valuable for most subjective values, but I imagine that may not be enough... further evidence for reasons why such a position is best within this context is that it is (1) inclusive: which allows more people to take part in a society and also defend such a society, (2) incentivized: the reason for holding this position stems from any personal incentive one has for achieving almost any personal end(s) (3) realistic: the only 'losers' in such a situation are those who cannot achieve their ends peacefully, which are a danger to others in any situation.

Of course, I'm working within a partially nihilistic framework (in the sense that I'm assuming there is no pre-existing, absolute value outside what people value... yet not to the extent that I deny an objective reality or true knowledge). This is bothersome to many I imagine.

Now with the example of pedophilia, it is worth noting that I'm talking about negative liberty in the sense of requiring voluntary consent whenever you require an action from others. So we enter question of maturation and whether a child can even voluntarily consent to the act in question. However, this doesn't contradict the previous points. If the child cannot be said to be mature enough to voluntarily consent, then engaging in such an act definitely qualifies as refusing to recognize and respect another's freedom. However, many different countries and states have different understanding of the point where I child can be said to voluntarily consent to sexual acts. However, the definition of an adult is a very basic question and the general idea is clear enough that a child doesn't have the mental capacity required to voluntarily consent to anything. So if the child cannot voluntarily consent, an act of pedophilia qualifies as a contradictory end which I described earlier.

Going back to my previous statement: "I figure if there's anything worth killing each other over, it's differences in core values." I figure this is a good example: it's not worth killing each other over what would be a difference in definition when we agree on the core principle as it can be settled with reasoning and evidence, as in killing each other over the age of consent. It would be worth killing someone over what would be a difference in the core principle, as in whether it was okay to take advantage of children... and if the disagreement was with someone who refused to acknowledge altogether that children cannot be reasonably expected to consent, well, there's no hope for compromise.

In closing, it is for these reasons that I believe:
(1) Negative liberties should be valued insofar as they achieve the totality of our individual, subjective values best. They have value only as a means to these ends.
(2) Where they do not achieve those individual, subjective values best, it is because the value itself is contradictory and self-defeating. Basically, it necessitates retaliation by the other to the extent their individual, subjective values are threatened.
(3) Worth noting that I think negative liberty is the only idea that can be taken to the extreme without running into fundamental problems.
(4) In positing complete freedom, there is no way to deny complete responsibility. I am responsible for EVERYTHING that occurs as the result of my actions, whether I intended it or not. There is no factor that prevents my freedom to choose in any situation. Nothing you can do can make me choose to eat a lightbulb (for a light example). If I eat a lightbulb, the fact that you pointed a gun to my head is irrelevant. I still had freedom and chose to eat the lightbulb. There is no escape, no blame that will save me from the reality. Of course, I can attempt to deny reality... but that action itself can be demonstrated as problematic, in much the same manner failing to recognize another's freedom.

So in response to this: "But in my opinion the world has become so terrified of pleasing everyone that many are to afraid to voice what they feel is wrong and right."
I trust that I've elaborated enough where you can see that this is a much, much more developed form of nihilism than you may be used to. I'm not merely saying "there is no right and wrong", I'm saying that the underlying framework of understanding that is behind traditional notions of right and wrong, good and evil is fundamentally inadequate and inaccurate and in order to better achieve our own individual, subjective ends - the source of any notion of value and purpose - there are a set of conditions that we are better off promoting for everyone (and preventing the opposite of) whose value stems from each and every individual, subjective end rather than some arbitrarily posited principle.

And there is still no right or wrong.

Of course, I could probably explain better, but I think I did a pretty good job of making the whole position clear.

P.S.
"[God] knows what is right and what is wrong.

It cannot be defined by logic, arguement, proof whatever. So Scarlets convoluted comment above is null and void.

Like I said, [God] would agree that murder is wrong. If there is a rogue element then it needs to be forced to conform to [God's will]."

So I'm still not much clearer on what you are expounding.

It sounds to me that you can respect the right of extemists to destroy the World Trade Center, blow up buses in London, massacre many in Norway and many other examples.

You need to examine your principles Scarlet and talk from the heart not from some pseudo intellectual radical view point. That or you are one of the ones that need reining in.

Okay, I'll just give the really simplified version:
Anyone who thinks something is right without logic, argument, or proof is fundamentally dangerous. All such people are dangerous... it doesn't matter if you take God or Global Consensus as the authority. I make no distinctions between a tyrant who demands that God's will be done and a tyrant who demands Society's will be done.

A society or government is worth living in only to the extent voluntary consent in the individual rights of life, liberty, and property is held sacred and above the demands of any government, group, or god.

All individuals who do not subscribe to these principles are better off destroyed, as permitting them to act against these principles poses a direct and fundamental threat to the very things we, as individuals, hold dear. There is no possibility of compromise without sacrificing these things.

This better? I got rid of some of the messy explanation of why I think this.

P.S. Death to the majoritarian!

It may be shorter but its no more correct.

I personally know if something is right or wrong without logic, arguement or proof. As do you really. It's a sort of how you know the consequences of your actions.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

A society or government is worth living in only to the extent voluntary consent in the individual rights of life, liberty, and property is held sacred and above the demands of any government, group, or god.<!-/Quote-!>

And you say this in your next paragraph. The opposite of what you first say.

I think you are just being an antagonist so I wont feed your trolling any further.

HaHa, I get lost in the length of text Scarlet. I appreciate the simpler (Or perhaps the 'dumbed down') version.

But I would argue that the great majority of what is right and wrong can be explained with simple logic and proof.

uhh i didnt read the whole thing but i think im getting the general drift of the conversation

"Anyone who thinks something is right without logic, argument, or proof is fundamentally dangerous. All such people are dangerous... it doesn't matter if you take God or Global Consensus as the authority. I make no distinctions between a tyrant who demands that God's will be done and a tyrant who demands Society's will be done. "

i agree with this completely.....if people believe in things based on prejudices or whims or an arbitrary "FEELING" weather it be god communism monstors or the chcocloate chip conspiracy then it makes sense that automatically they give that right to any other person which means

i can say i have a feeling that it is my duty to kill you or it is my duty to do anything i want because i have a feeling and you cant disagree with me

then this can become circular and you have complete anarchy

crafty i think your misinterpreting scarlets points

I read it all and I loved it!!!! I am a supporter of the general information scarlet is "expounding." I quoted that because full understanding of this concept requires actually quite a bit more detail. A concept I myself have rejected but entertained the idea of it, mostly because of the inadequacies I see with the objectivity of subjectivity, and the argument that reality is unknown. Far too abstract for me that nihilism thing. But if anyone wants a better understanding it seems as Scarlet likes Fokoh <spelling? and/or Neitsche and/or Lyotard.

But whatever I agree to most of it. I'll bring back up my example with Scarlet's explanation, to challenge Crafty's instant dismissal without any valid grounds for them.

Using Crafty's assumption that what the general world's concesses is what is right, is completely nonsensical, and insensitive. Most recognizable with "i) self preservation is a reason to kill. ii) preservation of the human race is another. iii) touching my car is the third." Your car is not worth a life, or many if the ocassion happens several times. But that's not the point. Some people's value systems puts things much higher then human life. As I said before if their belief in their version of Jesus is more important then the lives of everyone and everything they believe their actions are justifiable. WHO THE **** ARE YOU TO TELL THEM THEY ARE WRONG!!!! That's pretty much the gist of all of this.

It's funny that I star that out to not offend anyone. But see that is a value of mine. Why should others be subjected to such things that combat their values? This is why I despise free speech. Americans, Europeons, Japenese tend to think they decide how people should think.

What you are implying is that we have the freedoms to be insensitive, cohersive, and/or blatently ignorant. But these all come with a price. If you believe we are globally multicultural then you must also believe that we shouldn't have freespeech. Because actions like this persecute people. There is no such thing as extreme, only a passionate counter-effect. I could go on as long Scarlet about how we formulate ideas, volitions, and judgements however it isn't neccessary.

So this is what happened, Americans, and Europeans continously attack the values of people that we don't understand. They like everyone else have the obligation to defend those values. If they do it they are not extremists those who don't understand are merely ignorant. If you are looking for a villian in the situation look at the people who intentially attack the values of like a Billion people, just to piss them off. Stupid pasture, stupid halliburton, stupid USSR weapons industry, stupid French Trade Commision, stupid medievel English aristrocrats, the list goes on and on.

So it comes down to this Crafty you may believe any assault on your car is an unjustifiable act worth more than your own life, if they think that about Mohommad who is the real villian of this situation, also which of those two are less rational?

But society should definately be more objective and understand these consequences, and should be there to ensure these situations don't happen.

I always like it when Scarlet posts, it is always a good read, even if never agrees with my point of vire

Stupid boy, as I thought anyone would see, the car reference was a light hearted throw away comment. I can't believe you took it seriously.

I dont think your head is very clear Drew,

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

What you are implying is that we have the freedoms to be insensitive, cohersive, and/or blatently ignorant. But these all come with a price. If you believe we are globally multicultural then you must also believe that we shouldn't have freespeech.<!-/Quote-!>

where on earth do you get that from?

Listen, I'll do a Scarlet and try to make myself very clear:

It's very important, crucial even, that peoples can discuss their differing views, - have freedom of speech if you must further drag that expression in the gutter - but freedom of terrorism? mass murder? singular murder even? enslavery? forced rule? and all actions that are commonly accepted as 'wrong', No, there is no justification, in logic, reason, religion, for that.

Reasoned arguement, debate, and hell yeah, even the odd fight in parliaments, is the far better way to work things out, for all beliefs.

So quit being apologists for these groups that use fear as their only real weapon.

And bring our young men and women home from the middle east. We lost a young lad locally, para' Nicky Mason, and I'll tell you, it brings it home when you see his colleagues at the funeral in wheel chairs, burnt faces, limbs missing.

Justify that?! My arse.

I got that from all the other things I've said. You quoted an intemedian response.

Trust me I did use the car thing light heartedly, I merely used it to reference my point. If I took it seriously I would have been much more aggressive.

The truth is what actions spawn terrorism, mass murder, slavery, and forced rule? What is commonly accepted has no relevance when it counters people values. Why do they care if you don't like the violence, and if they know you will retaliate, if their life is meaningless compared to defending their honor?

Only idiots go and fight a war against an oppressed people, no love for the troops.

Justify peeing on dead soldiers bodies, and running around at nigfht killing defenseless civilians. That's right freedom of speech. pfft, completely lacks morality

I do understand I often get side tracked, and things aren't always clear in my posts

I have no idea why this is so difficult for some to understand. A persons 'freedoms' should never impose upon the freedoms of others. Its as simple as that. No need for long posts.

When/if my freedoms impose upon your freedoms then I am an extremist. We do not have the right or ability to say whose freedoms are most important. Therefore, do w/e you want UNLESS it results in hardships for others.

Ah yes, but killing someone might not be considered as imposing upon anothers freedoms by some. Then what?

What ever you guys think, there is a written code of good and bad that is universally understood. This code is what religious books try to put into words through parables and tales of lore. They all boil down to the same thing. Just some misuse them to create...create...I dont know, what do they want to create?

So, if you have to stomp on someones freedoms to protect the freedoms of peoples on the whole, then you should go ahead and stomp. We all know what are true rights and freedoms deserved by any human, all know, black, white, muslim or jew.

Any plea of 'it's my right to digress from the common moral code' is just so much codswallop.

So that is that, this thread is finished. I declare it my right to be right and going against my right to be right, right upsets me, right?

Sure as long as you realize that all previous aggression by the Europeon/American forces were violent by that force beforehand. So... I'm sure that right to defend themselves doesn't really apply. But you understand that so this thread is finished

@Drew
Never heard of Lyotard or Fokoh... maybe you meant Foucault? In which case, all I know about him is he had a picture of a pipe with the caption, "This is not a pipe." It was cute, but not enough to read further.
The big three people I've read and liked would be Nietzsche, Rand, and Heidegger.

@Serpent
The problem of simple things is that they will be misunderstood. When we talk about rights are we talking about claim rights, liberty rights, negative rights, and/or positive rights? When we talk about freedom are we talking about personal, political, and/or economic freedom? When we talk about about freedoms not imposing on others, do we mean freedoms should never incur unasked for obligations or unasked for inconveniences? What qualifies as a hardship? Is hearing someone insult your god a hardship as Drew said? Or is requiring people to keep their mouth shut a hardship as I said? How do we differentiate between these cases?
I'm not saying this to be difficult or contrary... this is simply a problem with "simple" solutions. They tend to be ambiguous and lend themselves to a wide variety of viewpoints, some of which are mutually exclusive. What may seem like hairsplitting in discussion eventually leads to vastly different personal actions and institutional policies when put into practice.

@Crafty
Spoken like a true man of faith. You know what they want to create? A better world.
They're people doing what they think is right.
We're all people doing what we think is right.
The only question is whether or not we can coexist.
You can't stop people from "digress[ing] from the common moral code". You just don't have the ability to. You can try to convince, coerce, repress, or kill people who digress... but you simply can't stop them.
"So quit being apologists for these groups that use fear as their only real weapon."
I don't think you quite understand... fear is your only weapon as well. What do you think remains when you say there is no logic, argument, or proof? There is what the majority believes, and everyone better get with the program or die!

I'm just saying unless somebody makes it necessary to kill them, we're better off not doing so (for reasons elaborated earlier). I don't really care what you or they think is right.
We're not fighting monsters; we're fighting dedicated people fully committed to what they honestly believe.

no we are fighting monstors who are good at controlling undereducated masses

but maybe thats just my perception

i think it has obviously become much to hard to coexist in this global world and more isolationist practices should be put into affect

Words do not incur hardships of any kind no more than thoughts do! Speech cant be censored for the same reason thoughts cant be censored. Obviously if somebody speaks against someone elses beliefs or their God they may be insulted, but it does not incur a hardship on them.

This idea of not imposing on others freedoms/rights applies on the small scale from your relationships with your spouse, neighbors, workmates, classmates etc.. to the larger scale like countries and religions or differing sets of beliefs. Enjoy all the freedoms you desire as long as they don't interfere with others freedoms.

This is the same point Ive tried to make in other posts as well, this world has become so preoccupied with 'political correctness' that people are willing to take offense at somebody's words! I mean c'mon man! Whats next? Will we not even be allowed to think how we want out of fear of offending somebody?

I do think that for there to be true peace among all the worlds population there needs to be a common set of morals, values, beliefs etc... But I nor any other human has the ability or right to determine what that is. When a group of people decide that it is their right to determine what others should say and think and not that of the individual, then that is extremism.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Sure as long as you realize that all previous aggression by the Europeon/American forces were violent by that force beforehand. So... I'm sure that right to defend themselves doesn't really apply.<!-/Quote-!>

I have no idea what that sentence means. Try it in coherent English.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

We're not fighting monsters; we're fighting dedicated people fully committed to what they honestly believe.<!-/Quote-!>

You are completely trumped by Alexandrov Scarlet.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

no we are fighting monstors who are good at controlling undereducated masses<!-/Quote-!>

I know instinctively what is right or wrong mostly, there may be one or two grey areas but...
As I'm sure you all do. A couple of times people have come a whisker away from saying they can sympathise with bombers and suicide pilots et al.

Who amongst us can honestly say they agree people have the right to kill others who mock them? If that were the case, Puerto Ricans would have wiped out Yanks a long time ago, the Irish the English, the Polish the Irish and so on. Your forefathers are turning in their graves right now. No one has the right to defile commonly accepted moral behaviour. No one has the right to decide what is acceptable as an individual or representative of a subsection of people either. Only what we know to be truly good and truly bad can define this. And we all should know the difference.

Go away you apologists, you make me sick. May the FBI monitor your radical pro terrorism posts.

Has anyone posting ever been overseas?? and observed any of the behavior depicted just a question