Bill O'Reilly sez you're unpatriotic if...

[Lawrence of Arabia]

thats what they want you to believe.

[DinoDoc]

Is that what the voices in your head tell you?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i wouldnt get invovled if i was you dino - im in a foul mood and might make you look silly.

[DinoDoc]

People who start talking about They (TM) tend to get that reply.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Here's an unbiased way to define the word 'terrorism.'

Take the root - terror - and add the suffix 'ism.' You get systematic terror.

Now how does that exempt govt.

I am not able to comprehend why someone should think that the etymological definition of a word is more unbiased than any other.

[Last Conformist]

If you believe in inherent, absolute rights, you either believe that rights are material objects, or you believe in the supernatural.

[Berzerker]

No, not usually. Genocide is meant to kill off everyone, not to scare the society you are killing into agreeing to your political demands. You don't care if that society agrees with your political goals, you just want them dead.

First, why is "terrorism" limited to achieving a political goal? Webster's New Collegiate doesn't limit terrorism to achieving a political goal. But I'd think genocide is the ultimate in terrorism, people who don't want to be killed runaway thereby leaving the land to the terrorists. I'd say re-drawing a map constitutes a political goal. The IRS scares people into achieving the political goals of politicians... Is that a form of terrorism? That's the nature of government - scare people into compliance with someone else's political goals.

[Berzerker]

If you believe in inherent, absolute rights, you either believe that rights are material objects, or you believe in the supernatural.

Is morality supernatural? Morality is the basis for rights, they are moral claims to act... Some people don't believe in inherent rights but do believe they should be created by society, that's neither a material object or supernatural...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia

its an analogy. gravity does 'dissapear' when you are in a swimming pool.

and those quotes by those famous guys are irrelevant - i too can find lots of quotes which support the idea of rights.

Tell that to the water.

The quotes aren't irrelevant- the hocus pocus of 'natural' rights was skewered ably by conservatives (like Burke) and utilitarians (like Bentham) long ago.

[Berzerker]

Why are natural rights "hocus pocus"? All of you who believe that "society" creates our rights will acknowledge that societies like Nazi Germany was wrong to kill millions, but based on what? Based on the victims natural right - their moral claim - to live! Either you adopt that natural rights are valid or you're stuck explaining why slavery is immoral if a society creates a right to enslave others...

[Agathon]

Natural rights are hocus pocus. There probably is a natural basis for our moral beliefs, but thinking of these in terms of rights produces counterintuitive results.

A moral theory where real world consequences don't fundamentally count (which is what a rights based theory is) only makes sense in terms of some kind of religious belief where God only cares that you follow the rules.

Moreover, you don't have to believe in natural rights to believe that morality is objectively binding on people. Almost all of us accept moral constraints and we can distill these down into a few fundamental principles (some of which don't fit well with others). Any normal person can tell you that what the Nazis did was evil, but they probably can't explain why it is, just as any person can tell you about what he is seeing right now, but can't explain the mechanism of sight or justify his belief.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by MrFun


So it would be perfectly fine for me to hire a hitman to kill someone because it was the hitman that killed the person and not me.

Not quite the same. It would be the equivalent of training the hit man but not necessarily engaging the hit man to contract.

Again I don't know the extent to which the US had operational control. So the illustration may be bad.

[Berzerker]

Aggie -

Natural rights are hocus pocus. There probably is a natural basis for our moral beliefs, but thinking of these in terms of rights produces counterintuitive results.

A right is a moral claim to act... So, from where does this moral claim to act derive? The state? Society? Then you have to defend all the crimes committed by states and societies. You can't, and that's when you rely on natural rights but you just call it something else. Even when Kucinich said the victims of the Nazis had no rights not granted by German society, he concluded they "ought" to have those rights. That is a recognition of natural rights even if he doesn't want to admit it since he acknowledged that rights should have a different source if society fails to create them...

A moral theory where real world consequences don't fundamentally count (which is what a rights based theory is) only makes sense in terms of some kind of religious belief where God only cares that you follow the rules.

Why invoke some deity that may or may not exist? Do you need the existence of a deity to believe in morality? If not, why can't morality be the basis for rights?

Moreover, you don't have to believe in natural rights to believe that morality is objectively binding on people.

Natural rights derive from morality - a right is a moral claim to act. "Rights" are an expression of this binding morality... So, what happens when society or the state violates or ignores this objectively binding morality? Do you believe this morality doesn't exist if the state cannot or does not recognise it? If not, you're stuck explaining from where this morality derives without using a natural or inherent source, i.e., a morality that exists regardless of what any state says.

Almost all of us accept moral constraints and we can distill these down into a few fundamental principles (some of which don't fit well with others).

And these few fundamental principles are the basis for rights.

Any normal person can tell you that what the Nazis did was evil, but they probably can't explain why it is, just as any person can tell you about what he is seeing right now, but can't explain the mechanism of sight or justify his belief.

For starters, the Nazis took what did not belong to them. I understand commies have difficulty grasping that given their belief everything belongs to the state. But for those of us who do believe that ownership starts with the individual, their evil is easily quantified.

[Jaguar]

Re: Bill O'Reilly sez you're unpatriotic if...

Originally posted by Berzerker
You think the US is a terrorist country...

Aside from the question as to whether or not it is and assuming O'Reilly thinks patriotism is good, I have a couple questions:

1) Does this mean the Afghans, Iraqis and Germans who supported the Taliban, Saddam and Hitler were patriots?

2) If so, doesn't this make O'Reilly's definition ridiculous from a moral point of view?

1. No. This means that you´re putting words in his mouth. He didn´t say that supporting the government makes you a patriot. He talked about one quality that makes you not be a patriot. There could easily be others: for example, if you support the mass-murdering of fellow citizens, you are also not a patriot.

Also, he never discussed other countries.

I don´t necessarily think his definition is good, but, as I have clearly demonstrated, you are using flawed logic.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First, why is "terrorism" limited to achieving a political goal?

Um... because otherwise terrorism is every act of violence, and it isn't supposed to be. Have you ever heard of a 'terrorist group' which didn't have a political agenda?

The IRS scares people into achieving the political goals of politicians... Is that a form of terrorism?

No, because the IRS doesn't use violence. It may threaten to put you in jail (which is not violence.. even if the police officers have to restrain you if you get rowdy), but they won't kill you or maim you. And furthermore, if you want to look at definitions, both Merriam-Webster and American Heritage define terrorism as the UNLAWFUL use of force.