Poor Ben.

[matteos]

And I'm not a Jew. I'm atheist. Practice religion all you want in your church or your mosque or temple. No problem at all. When your beliefs come out in society like the anti gays anti abortionists.. I have a problem. When your beliefs spill out to kill people I will take up arm sagainst you. If we actually fight Isis. I may well join up to the military.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by matteos

These aren't emotional statements. This is fact. You don't let a rabid dog run around biting people. You prove to me that Isis Is better than a rabid dog. I will quit this site.

Wow. You're so upset that your feelings are being questioned that you're threatening to quit? I think that settles the question about whether your beliefs are emotional....

Of course they are. You're human. And the foundation of all value judgements is emotional. Or can you show me some rational reason to love one's children, or love one's country, or whatever? (I suspect you are now experiencing negative emotion towards me because I'm such an awful person that I would even question 'love of children' or 'love of country.' I say that just shows that emotion-based beliefs have emotional defenses.)

OK, you challenge me to prove Isis is better than a rabid dog. Well, I admit I can't, but I never claimed I could. I don't claim my value judgements are based on logic subject to proof. My ultimate basis is faith that right and wrong exist, and that I have valid beliefs about them, but I can't prove these things.

But you seem to think your position that they are the moral equivalent of rabid dogs is provable. So prove away. If you still think you need to.

Because I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is I can't back up my moral criticism of you, except in the end by emotional appeal to beliefs I think others (even you to some degree) share. So my attack lacks 'logical authority' and you don't have to prove anything.

The bad news is you can't back up your beliefs either.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by matteos

What do you think should happen to them?

As long as they are at large, fighting, they should be fought, in the ways least costly overall (in lives and treasure) that will protect others and compel their surrender. Any that surrender should be judged by due process of law, and sentenced accordingly, up to life in prison.

You will recall that we didn't just hang the top Nazis that we caught, we tried them first. However, I don't favor hanging anyone, mainly because we want to too much. A main point of the fight is that bloodlust and barbarity are wrong, isn't it?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

The bad news is you can't back up your beliefs either.

Beliefs are just thoughts we have over and over again. Everybody has their own set. It's how the human brain works. Beliefs are just beliefs there's no backing them up, there's no reason to back them up. And as much as we try to back up our beliefs...or our opinions...both are always backed up with other beliefs or opinions. So where to "facts" come in? The is an exceedingly short list of "facts." Most involve natural law, physics, chemistry, some mathematics that isn't too creative.

We could make some modernized adjustments in what follows that will fit with what scientific method has taught us since Democritus' time (like quarks, nutrinos, strings, etc.)...but the essence of his comment remains true:
"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion."

So when we make suggestions about backing up our beliefs or opinions...we aren't really talking about very much in the real world.

[donquixote99]

Hey, I wasn't the one who demanded proof that the bad dudes weren't 'rabid dogs.'

Did Democritius think that opinions exist? Was he offering one?

[Pio1980]

IS in all it's iterations may well burn itself out and lose its appeal with its excesses, IF, it becomes worse than any alternative, including the lawless chaos or vicious opression it replaced in some cases.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Hey, I wasn't the one who demanded proof that the bad dudes weren't 'rabid dogs.'

Did Democritius think that opinions exist? Was he offering one?

Feh. Rabid dogs don't get no measly life in prison. What I say is that if you're ISIS, if you're Hamas, Hezbolla, Fatah, Boko Haram, Jamaah Izlamiya, or any of the rest of them...you're a member of a terrorist organization and complicit in any and all of their crimes. You are automatically subject to immediate grisley death, and if you're fucking luckier than you deserve, a fair trial followed by ugly death.

I think Democritus was offering a rare fact.

[Pio1980]

Getting back to Ben Carson's ridiculous assertion: Czechoslovakia had guns and an army, Poland had guns and an army, Belgium had guns and an army, Holland had guns and an army, France had guns and an army. German Jews with some guns and no army were not going to make a difference with their fate against the regime. Their best option was to leave, the earlier the better as it turned out. Ben's projection of American wingnut 2nd amendmentist fantasy into the German 3rd Reich is insulting ridiculous speculation unsupported by history or fact. While German public reaction to excesses like Crystallnacht could moderate execution of policies, lack of general support for minorities and especially Jews inside and outside Germany encouraged escalation of the opression and the tolerance level, tho' the regime remained sensitive to the mood of the people until the fortunes of war turned inexorably against the Axis and the Reich.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Feh. Rabid dogs don't get no measly life in prison. What I say is that if you're ISIS, if you're Hamas, Hezbolla, Fatah, Boko Haram, Jamaah Izlamiya, or any of the rest of them...you're a member of a terrorist organization and complicit in any and all of their crimes. You are automatically subject to immediate grisley death, and if you're fucking luckier than you deserve, a fair trial followed by ugly death.

I think Democritus was offering a rare fact.

Would you have favored a grisley (sic) death for every member of the Wehrmacht? Or perhaps just every member of the Nazi Party.

When are you going to figure out that your own feelings and your own rhetoric are virtually identical to those of the people you wish to see killed? As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that distinguished you from them is that, presumably, you haven't yet acted on your desires.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Getting back to Ben Carson's ridiculous assertion: Czechoslovakia had guns and an army, Poland had guns and an army, Belgium had guns and an army, Holland had guns and an army, France had guns and an army. German Jews with some guns and no army were not going to make a difference with their fate against the regime. Their best option was to leave, the earlier the better as it turned out. Ben's projection of American wingnut 2nd amendmentist fantasy into the German 3rd Reich is insulting ridiculous speculation unsupported by history or fact. While German public reaction to excesses like Crystallnacht could moderate execution of policies, lack of general support for minorities and especially Jews inside and outside Germany encouraged escalation of the opression and the tolerance level, tho' the regime remained sensitive to the mood of the people until the fortunes of war turned inexorably against the Axis and the Reich.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Does not warrant taking away his licenses.