Bipartisan Support For War!

Why? In the history of the U.S. no "push for war" has ever been completely honest. After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and declared war on the U.S., FDR when he made his "Day of Infamy" speech asking for a declaration of war on Japan didn't point out that the U.S. had been waging an economic war against Japan that had been on the verge of bringing down the Japanese economy.

Lying is bad Dayton. Lying to the public as a reason to get them to support a war is doubly so.

As usual, you fail basic morality.

Many times the right thing to do is also a very hard thing to do. The painful thing to do. People shy away from doing hard and painful things for obvious reasons.

None of which justifies you or anyone else appointing themselves the arbiter of what is the right thing to do and getting others to agree by misleading them.

Thou shalt not bear false witness. Remember that one, you stupid motherfucker?

That's from the Old Testament. It doesn't count. Christians can lie, cheat, fornicate, and murder all they want.

You got three out of four, according to Dayton. He won't hear of fornication.

The Bible concerns itself with individual morality. Not morality of national actions or other groups.

What are you talking about?

Having sex with a woman that isn't one of your wives.

That's so fucking retarded I don't even know where to start.

Not if you're a rules lawyer.

Yes there is

That article is almost 4 years old, and none of the speculation has come to pass. We've still only got 2000 troops there, and if anything, things are starting to wind down.

Why? Don't you consider "morality" to be something that applies to individuals? Because there is no such thing as "collective guilt" or "collective innocence". From a practical psychological standpoint almost every person feels less responsible for the actions of a group they are a member of than if those exact same actions were performed by them and them alone.

Morality applies to people whether they are acting as individuals or as part of a group. It doesn't suddenly go out the fucking window because you get an official title as part of some organisation.

Do you think things like genocide or a mob looting a store are amoral?

Which is exactly the excuse which has been used since time immemorial.

It does have some basis in psychology yes, in that people are often more willing to commit terrible acts in mobs, where they feel responsibility is diffused. Nonetheless they still make a choice to act or not act and membership of a group is no excuse.

Is that a "no"?

Seriously. It was an honest question.

I do not believe genocide or looting a store are "moral".

Obviously not. I was asking if you believe they are amoral.

If your morality is so simplistic that you think it's "bad" to lie in order to stop someone else from bombing and gassing even more children, then you might be a Russian stooge.

I'm not sure I recognize that concept.

You mean you don't know what "amoral" means?

Definition of amoral

1a: having or showing no concern about whether behavior is morally right or wrong
b: being neither moral nor immoral
specifically : lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply
2: being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of morals

No, I meant I do not believe in the concept. To me things are either "immoral" or "moral". Though there are degrees in each.

That wasn't the question.

So you believe that genocide and looting mobs are immoral?

I don't think the question has any meaning to him. He'll look for a loophole in a legal system or scripture and deflect the human responsibility that way, but he won't actually go through the mental processes which underlie the concept of morality.

This is a guy who in the 6 billion thread just claimed starving and killing civilian populations is ok if there's no specific clause against it in international law.

Now he's claiming the christian code of morality is silent where there's more than one person involved.

I think I understand what he's saying. Genocide is immoral, but since the New Testament has nothing to say about collective immorality, being on the bad guys side is not a sin.

Oh I got that, my point though is twofold:

1) That's a pretty damning indictment of Christianity as a code to moral behaviour.

2) It's an even worse indictment of a person who wouldn't look past that limitation. People should, IMHO, draw their own conclusions about the world without recourse to dogma. YMMV