Why Have the GOP and Conservatives

[Berzerker]

I'm complaining about a blatent threadjack .

And sure you started it. After all, it is tangentially based on your OP.

Wow! From a blatant "hijack" to a tangential "hijack" all in 2 sentences. I thought a thread hijack was an attempt to change the subject, not debate terms used in the OP.

No it doesn't. Moral relativism allows for people to have their pwn personal moralities and try to impose it on others. It just says that the morality that person A has is no more valid or absolute truth-like than the one person B has. And if person A asserts that it is, he is simply making it up for his own ends. In the end, moral relativism basically says your morality is just as good as this tosser who is saying you are violating some 'absolute morality'. After all, if he asserts him as absolute morality and someone else says they are absolute morality... who wins in the end? The one with the power to say his is the real absolute morality, that's who.

But when I asked Ramo who was right wrt whose morality was correct, he said his was. That creates a paradox between his moral relativism and your claim that moral relativism denies that one morality is accurate and another is inaccurate.

Oh well, time to see how badly you're getting ripped in Fantasy baseball

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Kucinich -

Of course, we're talking about morality - right and wrong. But how can the victim of murder do what they want if someone else murders them? They can't, so that's an illogical supposition.

What does fulfilling desires have to do with morality? Why is it morally bad if someone can't do what they want?

Because there is no universal desire to murder people wearing plaid shirts much less murder people in general.

Ah, so it's right because there is a "universal" desire for it. So, if there was a universal desire to kill people in plaid shirts, it would be morally right?

[Ramo]

That's what I've been saying, but Ramo says his POV that slavery is immoral is the right POV. So how can he be a moral relativist?

I believe it to be the right view. I never said that it was the right view according to an objective morality.

Anywho, breaking news on the Iraq prison abuse scandal (this time, with the Delta Force):

BAGHDAD - With attention focused on the seven soldiers charged with abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. military and intelligence officials familiar with the situation tell NBC News the Army’s elite Delta Force is now the subject of a Pentagon inspector general investigation into abuse against detainees.

[...]

According to two top U.S. government sources, it is the scene of the most egregious violations of the Geneva Conventions in all of Iraq’s prisons. A place where the normal rules of interrogation don’t apply, Delta Force’s BIF only holds Iraqi insurgents and suspected terrorists — but not the most wanted among Saddam’s lieutenants pictured on the deck of cards

These sources say the prisoners there are hooded from the moment they are captured. They are kept in tiny dark cells. And in the BIF’s six interrogation rooms, Delta Force soldiers routinely drug prisoners, hold a prisoner under water until he thinks he’s drowning, or smother them almost to suffocation.

[...]

So, does Rumfeld know about the BIF and what goes on there?

Several top U.S. military and intelligence sources say yes, and that he, through other top Pentagon officials, directed the U.S. head of intelligence in Iraq, Gen. Barbara Fast, and others to bring some of the methods used at the BIF to prisons like Abu Ghraib, in hopes of getting better intelligence from Iraqi detainees.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5024068/

This could be big...