From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Aug 23 2005 - 21:41:53 BST
> [Arlo]
> Yeah... I don't get it. Are you saying that ALL ideas are old and therefore
> is no such thing as a progressive idea at all?
Tell me what you consider a progressive idea and I'll give you my opinion
as to it's age.
>But, you say "Jesus'
> teachings are impractical", and yet you've argued over many posts that a
> "Judeo-Christian moral code" should help govern society until it embraces
> the MOQ.
It's impractical, but better than the Muslim code wouldn't you say? And
don't you think it hypocritical when those who deny Christianity rely on
it's precepts in moral matters?
> I think what you're really saying is that his teachings regarding
> YOUR behavior are impractical, but his teachings about OTHERS behavior are
> perfectly fine by you.
You can think whatever you wish.
> As for Marx, that old red-herring tossed from the picklebarrel once again,
> I have yet to read where Marx advocated "affirmative action" or blocking of
> judicial appointees, or opposing tyrannical dictators, or any of the
> "progressive" 1890ish ideas you wanted "liberals" to "try". Indeed, the
> only one is loosely what you call the "welfare state".
If progressives oppose tyrannical dictators, why are they making such a
fuss about deposing Saddam? Marx preached egalitarianism, from which those
other progressive ideas spring, straight from the picklebarrel. If you
insist on calling Marx a red herring, I'll call your 1890's anti-
capitalist references the same.
> [Platt]
> When did conservatives block liberal judicial nominations with threats of
> filibusters?
>
> [Arlo]
> Nice rhetorical sidestep. Are you saying only filibustering appointees is
> immoral? Do you deny that conservatives worked to block liberal judicial
> appointees during democratic presidencies?
Did I say blocking judicial nominees was immoral. If so, I take it back.
What I meant to convey that progressives like to claim they are in favor
of change, but now when push comes to shove, they're against it.
> [Arlo previously]
> You keep claiming the moral high-ground for conservatives with the
> eradication of Saddam and the Taliban, and yet you are oddly silent on
> Bush's close family and business ties with the House of Saud. Do you only
> favor "eradicating" dictators that are not in business and in bed with our
> president?
>
> [Platt]
> What close family and business ties? You been reading moveon.org again?
>
> [Arlo]
> Sometimes, Platt, I value your adversary position, because I believe it to
> be a thought-out response to your experience. But then you'll say something
> like this and I wonder how everything for you became so neatly dichotomous
> as to make you blindly uncritical, to the point of proposing media
> conspiracies, of anything regarding your political leader and the neocon
> party-line. I can see the reasoning wheel spinning... "Of course Bush can't
> be in business with the House of Saud, he's a conservative, and
> conservatives are Good, only liberals have immoral business dealings, so it
> all must be a lie. Hail to the Chief!"
Is that an answer or just another personal attack?
> [Arlo previously]
> What is your rationale for opposing same-sex marriages? On what basis do
> you find them immoral? More specifically, on what basis do you morally
> argue that a same-sex life partner should not have the same civil
> inheritance rights as a heterosexual life partner? Would you support a
> majority vote on making red-heads unable to marry? Why? Why not? If the
> majority can determine what sexes are allowed to marry, why not what
> haircolors? What's the moral difference?
>
> [Platt]
> Marriage was and is defined as a union of a man and a woman for the
> purpose of procreation. When homosexuals beget babies, let me know and
> perhaps I'll change my mind. Until then, I favor normal marriage for the
> moral reason to ensure the evolution of society.
>
> [Arlo]
> Who defined it as such?
Society, since Adam and Eve.
> But here you've sidestepped the entire question. Do you favor a majority
> vote on deciding who can and who can not get married, so that you'd favor a
> law banning redheads from marrying? If such a law would be immoral, why can
> the majority determine what sexes are allowed to marry? What's the moral
> difference?
I favor states voting on the issue of same-sex marriage. Why do you oppose
that? And If you can't tell the difference between redheads and
heterosexual men and women, I can't help you.
> And, on what basis do you morally argue that a same-sex life partner should
> not have the same civil inheritance rights as a heterosexual life partner?
> Are you suggesting the answer is that since same-sex life partners can't
> have babies together, they should be denied (morally) the right to pass
> their inheritance?
As far as I know, anyone can leave their property to anyone, including
their pet cat. Do you know differently?
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 24 2005 - 05:03:45 BST