Battle Royale VII Specific discussion thread

[Freak]

Re: Freak, I'm interested in your experience...

Re: Freak, I'm interested in your experience...

Originally posted by Bob Enyart
Freak, I'd like to know more about your experience regarding this issue.

You stating: "...but missionaries find that women in such cultures readily reassert their modesty" is untrue from what I have actually experienced and know to be true. I have often preached in areas where tribeswomen are topless and they often will come right up to you to hear your message. They will stand right in front of you without any regard. They do not reassert their modesty.

Can you give me a list of a few countries and locales that you are thinking of.

The places that I have seen this often is in places like Nigeria, Togo, Ghana, and Benin (places I have spent considerable amount of time in--living/visting dozens of times). For someone who travels often as I have, you realize that there are many thousands who still go topless and they do not "readily reassert their modesty."

 

[Zakath]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tsk Tsk...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Tsk Tsk...

Originally posted by RogerB
The hatred they spew here.

Silly Roger, such tricks are for kids!

How can one hate what one doesn't believe even exists?

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by Zakath
It depends upon a number of factors including the amount of time I have to prepare (which is not unlimited for me since doing this kind of thing is a hobby for me but part of St. Bob the Broadcaster's job...), whether the question is relevant to the point or the debate itself.

Awwww.... gee where is the sad violin playing smilie when you need it?

My statement has nothing to do with his reference to the Holocaust, you have misinterpreted my comments.

By all means then please clarify.... was it, or was it not, absolutely wrong for the Nazi's to murder 6 million Jews motivated by racial and religious hatred?

I asked for source materials, not more examples.

If a single absolute wrong exists (i.e., the Holocaust) then that single absolute is proof that absolute morality exists, the source of that absolute must be by definition ABOVE mankind or it would not be absolute. Therefore, in a way.... the source of the absolute is only relevant in the subsequent debate.... "What is God like?"

He cites his love for his wife and children as the source for absolute morals? Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, and even atheists love their wives and children. That is hardly evidence for attributing a standard to a deity. He is dodging the question by refusing to engage and state exactly where he finds the basis for his alleged moral absolutes. Perhaps his next examples will be drawn from Country-Western music... :chuckle:

Are you trying to ague Bob's point for him?

If atheism were true, love, hate, jealously and any other emotion would be meaningless concepts with no framework to judge them as having any true meaning. The fact that all humans universally have these emotions is more evidence for a god.

Upon examination of these emotions is when we can begin to discern what type of god created us.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Vitamin J
Awwww.... gee where is the sad violin playing smilie when you need it?

Yeah, and my momma wanted me to keep up with the music lessons.

By all means then please clarify.... was it, or was it not, absolutely wrong for the Nazi's to murder 6 million Jews motivated by racial and religious hatred?

It was wrong. Period.

Is genocide absolutely wrong?

If a single absolute wrong exists (i.e., the Holocaust) then that single absolute is proof that absolute morality exists, the source of that absolute must be by definition ABOVE mankind or it would not be absolute. Therefore, in a way.... the source of the absolute is only relevant in the subsequent debate.... "What is God like?"

Perhaps not "above" mankind, but uniformly acceptable to him out of social predisposition. Not everything outside of humanity need depend on a deity for its existence...

If atheism were true, love, hate, jealously and any other emotion would be meaningless concepts with no framework to judge them as having any true meaning. The fact that all humans universally have these emotions is more evidence for a god.

If you want to argue this one, I'd suggest you read a bit of Michael Martin and Donald Krueger first. It's already been done to death...

Upon examination of these emotions is when we can begin to discern what type of god created us.

Such an examination is well outside the scope of this debate. Such emotions need not provide evidence for deity. Loving one's mate and offspring are quite well explained as race preserving imperatives. It could become merely another trait selected for by the environment. Those with stronger "love" would bring more offspring to breeding age, eventually outbreeding those without such affection.

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by Zakath
It was wrong. Period.

So is that a "yes, the Holocaust was absolutely wrong?"

Is genocide absolutely wrong?

Of course its not absolutely wrong!

I assume you agree, right?

Why even ask such an obvious question? Are you hoping to change the topic?

GENOCIDE: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

When the USA wiped out the Nazi regime, that in and of itself, fell into the definition of genocide "The systematic and planned extermination of a political group." I hardly think that was absolutely wrong. Do you?

But more importantly, if you can think of ONE absolutely wrong genocide please post it in your next response and by doing so admit that absolute morality exists.

Perhaps not "above" mankind, but uniformly acceptable to him out of social predisposition.

You are not very smart are you Zakath?

You desire a standard above "preference" but reject an absolute standard.

Please demonstrate your standard that supersedes preference but falls short of absolute.

 

[Flipper]

VitaminJ: I (and most people) probably can't concieve of a situation when genocide would be right.

Doesn't make it an absolute though.

I notice that when the Nazis were brought up on charges at Nuremberg, they were charged with "crimes against humanity".

Not "crimes against God" or "crimes in the eyes of God".

Any reason why that would be, do you think?

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by Flipper
VitaminJ: I (and most people) probably can't concieve of a situation when genocide would be right.

Really? I thought I just did. How about when the USA wiped out the NAZI regime, wasn't that a good thing? Wasn't the destruction of the NAZI political party a good genocide?

So now we are discussing two "Genocides"... A. The holocaust. and... B. The wiping out of the NAZI political party.

YES or NO... are either of these TWO genocide's absolutely wrong or are they both equally morally neutral and only depend on your own personal preference as to how you may view them?

 

[Flipper]

VitaminJ:

How is the fall of Germany and the dissolution of the Nazi party a genocide?

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by Flipper
VitaminJ:

How is the fall of Germany and the dissolution of the Nazi party a genocide?

Simple.

Look up the definition of genocide and see for yourself!

When one country systematically wipes out another political party of its own or poltical party from another country that falls into the definition of genocide.

gen·o·cide
n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

 

[Flipper]

So then we just committed genocide in Iraq?

Why is no one complaining? Probably because to most people, genocide is primarily physical or perhaps cultural, not political.

Even the UN doesn't seem to have complained about genocide, and I've found quite a few of their definitions to be a bit "iffy".

Cultural genocide, hard and unfair though it may be seems preferable to being poured out of a crematorium chimney.

I'm inclined to go with Merriam Webster on this one:

systematic killing of a racial or cultural group

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by Flipper
So then we just committed genocide in Iraq?

By definition.. yes! And I don't consider that wrong do you? I consider wiping out Saddams regime good! When a political party or country is perpetrating an evil act sometimes genocide is good!

Genocide is morally neutral.

I don't suppose your going to address any of my questions are you?

 

[Vitamin J]

ZAKATH

 

[Vitamin J]

Its funny how those that argue against absolute morality all of the sudden start arguing FOR absolute morality when genocide is concerned.

Do you know why?

I do!

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by Flipper
I'm inclined to go with Merriam Webster on this one:

Same here.

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: geno·cide
the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Call Bob's show tonight at 7PM MDT and discuss BR VII - 1-800-8Enyart.

 

[jeremiah]

I really liked Bob's 8th post. Arguing the existence of God from the aspects of personality, psychology and Beauty, will be difficult and uninviting to argue against. If you come up with natural and survivalistic reasons for the complexity of humanness, one comes off as stodgy, shallow and elite. You will certainly lose the "common man" if you don't at least become agnostic or philosophical, in ascribing some sort of meaning to man's personality and character. One may consider it a weak way to argue for God's existence, but arguing against Him in the same way makes one seem both ungodly and inhuman. For example Jennifer Lopez isn't really beautiful, she just seems to be. Or, you wouldn't really do anything good and right for your kids, out of love for them, it is just your own survival instinct, and perpetuation of the species at work.:nono:

 

[Elnora]

Good points jeremiah.

 

[Vitamin J]

Originally posted by jeremiah
I really liked Bob's 8th post. Arguing the existence of God from the aspects of personality, psychology and Beauty, will be difficult and uninviting to argue against. If you come up with natural and survivalistic reasons for the complexity of humanness, one comes off as stodgy, shallow and elite. You will certainly lose the "common man" if you don't at least become agnostic or philosophical, in ascribing some sort of meaning to man's personality and character. One may consider it a weak way to argue for God's existence, but arguing against Him in the same way makes one seem both ungodly and inhuman. For example Jennifer Lopez isn't really beautiful, she just seems to be. Or, you wouldn't really do anything good and right for your kids, out of love for them, it is just your own survival instinct, and perpetuation of the species at work.:nono:

Yea, Bob's 8th post was excellent.

Humorous, interesting and hard hitting.

Very good!

 

[jeremiah]

Thanks Elnora

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Vitamin J
So is that a "yes, the Holocaust was absolutely wrong?"

No, that is an incorrect reading of my post. I did not use the word absolute.

Of course its not absolutely wrong!...Why even ask such an obvious question?

Then on what basis do you believe that the NAZI attempt at genocide was absolutely wrong? Or do you?

But more importantly, if you can think of ONE absolutely wrong genocide please post it in your next response and by doing so admit that absolute morality exists.

If there are instances of it being correct as well as it being wrong, then it is not absolute

You desire a standard above "preference" but reject an absolute standard.

Again, I never stated such. IIRC, you claimed that such a standard exists. I merely asked you, as I have asked Knight and Enyart, to demonstrate it.

Since you do not believe that genocide is absolutely wrong, I'm still waiting.

How about killing the unborn?