Iraqi Protestors

[arkansasbob]

and something can be "right to someone" (or everyone, for that matter) and still be absolutely wrong.

that is absolutely right, but has nothing to do with this argument.

[LSUcks]

something can be "wrong to someone" (or everyone, for that matter) and still be absolutely right.

True, but if you think your right and everyone else thinks your wrong, then the fact of you being wrong is solely based on what everyone else thinks, which can then lead to a moral majority based society, imposing rules and regulations on uncontrolled human subconscious reactions bread into our minds through heretitary gene ancestor DNA, making up for the lack of decision making on our part which in it's self is a decision. Wrong or right.

[arkansasbob]

True, but if you think your right and everyone else thinks your wrong, then the fact of you being wrong is solely based on what everyone else thinks, which can then lead to a moral majority based society, imposing rules and regulations on uncontrolled human subconscious reactions bread into our minds through heretitary gene ancestor DNA, making up for the lack of decision making on our part which in it's self is a decision. Wrong or right.

that sounds like it came straight from dr. stokely. but absolute right is (by definition) always right, no matter what anyone (majority or minority) thinks.

[LSUcks]

that sounds like it came straight from dr. stokely. but absolute right is (by definition) always right, no matter what anyone (majority or minority) thinks.

Who decides what is always right? The majority. Absolute right would be (by definition) a majority definition of what is right.

[arkansasbob]

Who decides what is always right? The majority. Absolute right would be (by definition) a majority definition of what is right.

perhaps you should look up the definition of absolute. this one is from dictionary.com:

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Function: adjective
1 a : free from qualification, condition, exception, or restriction

i stand by my previous statements.

[sik-m-boi]

perhaps you should look up the definition of absolute. this one is from dictionary.com:

Main Entry: ab·so·lute
Function: adjective
1 a : free from qualification, condition, exception, or restriction

i stand by my previous statements.

then, perhaps "right" cannot be "absolute" but right is just a paradigm established by the majority to regulate the lives of everyone. in the 20s it was decided by the government that alcohol cunsumption was wrong but the majority did not, thus they drank...the precedent for "right" was established by the minority and therefore was ineffective...had this been established by the majority, then perhaps, prohibition would still exist.

and i challenge the dictionary definition that you have posted. if you say there is an "absolute right" than you must admit to a higher authority which has established it, something beyond yourself or government...God, buddah, zoroaster, allah, etc. but by admitting to that you are stating a qualification on "absolute right"--"it is absolute because God said it is." i believe that this is true if God says it, it is absolute...but to those who don't adhere to that train of thought then there can be no absolute right, no absolute wrong, no absolute anything.

ok, that was fun.

[johnnylightnin]

but to those who don't adhere to that train of thought then there can be no absolute right, no absolute wrong, no absolute anything.

This is a post-modern staple...there are no absolutes. There is a fundamental flaw in this statement...it is an absolute. There are absolutely no absolutes...it's foolishness disguised(sp) as intellectualism.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

This is a post-modern staple...there are no absolutes. There is a fundamental flaw in this statement...it is an absolute. There are absolutely no absolutes...it's foolishness disguised(sp) as intellectualism.

"You gotta love it"

[sik-m-boi]

This is a post-modern staple...there are no absolutes. There is a fundamental flaw in this statement...it is an absolute. There are absolutely no absolutes...it's foolishness disguised(sp) as intellectualism.

good point...i was just rambling with those guys since they had de-railed about 10 posts ago. but for the sake of argument:

if one does not subscribe to a faith which establishes their absolutes than the one absolute that they have is that there are no absolutes...it's not a flaw in reasoning it's a paradox..."there are no others because there is one" not simply "there are none" that alone would be a flawed argument. not there are "absolutely no absolutes" but "there is absolutely one absolute and that one is that there are no other absolutes."

now that's some circular logic...looking forward to your response.

[johnnylightnin]

now that's some circular logic...looking forward to your response.

I'm gonna have to forward that to CS Lewis...I mean, I'd answer you and all, but I'm doing some laundry right now...you know how it is.

[cgraves562]

To answer your question,

They both executed or killed many people (including innocents, children, and senior citizens)

They both invaded other countries without being provoked.

They both love oil and made tons of money off of it.

They both had kids that who are a role model to no one.

They both are hated by Osama Bin Laden.

They both have worked with Osama Bin Laden.......go figure.


They both believe in dictatorships......Did Bush not say "A dictatorship would be much easier"?


Need more?

GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.

That was the actual quote from cnn.com (I cringed going to their site, but it was what came up when I searched for the quote on Yahoo)

I guess Dogfood is the typical liberal, no sense of humor...I can just see W now with that funny grin of his, and funny laugh when he makes a joke, while saying that..those are a couple of his many endearing qualities

[arkansasbob]

good point...i was just rambling with those guys since they had de-railed about 10 posts ago. but for the sake of argument:

if one does not subscribe to a faith which establishes their absolutes than the one absolute that they have is that there are no absolutes...it's not a flaw in reasoning it's a paradox..."there are no others because there is one" not simply "there are none" that alone would be a flawed argument. not there are "absolutely no absolutes" but "there is absolutely one absolute and that one is that there are no other absolutes."

now that's some circular logic...looking forward to your response.

that would be a pretty useless absolute. kinda like assembly instructions that contain only one statement: "read all instructions before assembling the product."

but not only useless, it would still be flawed. consider the following conversation:

"did you step on that bug?"
"yes."
"is the bug dead?"
"i don't know."

while that conversation is very trivial, both answers are either absolutely right or absolutely wrong. to say, "to you i may have stepped on the bug, but to me i missed him," would be absurd. reality is not different for different individuals. any statement ruling out absolutes (or limiting them to just one) is absurd.

[johnnylightnin]

but for the sake of argument:

if one does not subscribe to a faith which establishes their absolutes than the one absolute that they have is that there are no absolutes...it's not a flaw in reasoning it's a paradox..."there are no others because there is one" not simply "there are none" that alone would be a flawed argument. not there are "absolutely no absolutes" but "there is absolutely one absolute and that one is that there are no other absolutes."

Did a little laundry and a lot of thinking...If there is one absolute, then a number of other statements must be false. For instance: Farting in church is wrong is not absolutely true...that is in conflict with the system set up that there is only one absolute. Every absolute has two sides, the absolute truth and the absolute falacy. So, as a statement, what you said may not be flawed. Put into practice, it's absolutely flawed.

[johnnylightnin]

I imagine folks are getting board at all this psychobabble, so let's get back to point...what was the point? I think it was something about dawgfood wanting to move to France or Clinton sucks or something...I can't remember.

[sik-m-boi]

Did a little laundry and a lot of thinking...If there is one absolute, then a number of other statements must be false. For instance: Farting in church is wrong is not absolutely true...that is in conflict with the system set up that there is only one absolute. Every absolute has two sides, the absolute truth and the absolute falacy. So, as a statement, what you said may not be flawed. Put into practice, it's absolutely flawed.

no, if there is but one absolute than the only statements that could be construed as false are those which claim to establish a new absolute. but the situation of "farting in church" being wrong could only be false if it was said to be always wrong or always right. secondly i believe that an absolute can have only one side...it is either black or white...by definition an absolute can lean only one way, and an absolute is always true...that is why it is absolute. that being said, to say that in practice the concept of having a single absolute which eliminates all others is flawed... i would say to you that it is not flawed in practice, it is impossible to practice. how can you practice something, that by believing in it, forces you to admit that a universal consistancy is nonexistant. so if it is impossible to practice something with no parameters to guide it then the practice cannot be flawed because it cannot exist.