Heh, "Judeo-Christian moral values". I always hear that in Bill O'Reilly's voice: "JuuuuuDAYYYYYo-Christian VALues". Is that supposed to be a long way to say Old Testament?

How about "a short way of saying 'there's a difference between right and wrong'"? If you are guided by moral equivalance in a case like this, I maintain you're willfully blind.

Oh, by the way: belated Godwin's Law call.

No, that would be "Moral absolutism". "Judeo-Christian" is orthogonal to that.

My gawd, you people use some big words sometimes. I had to go look up Happy Monkey's term, 'orthogonal'.

Couldn't you have said 'different'? :p

Stormie

'orthogonal' is stronger than 'different'. It's a great word. It's the most concise way I know of saying "doesn't have anything to do with" or "you're not even in the right ballpark".

I was using definition 5, though perhaps not precisely. I would expect religious people to be statistically more likely to be moral absolutists, and people who self-identify as "Judeo-Christian" to be statistically more likely to be religious people. But all moral absolutists certainly aren't "Judeo-Christian" and all Jews and Christians aren't moral absolutists.

And speaking of definitions and mathematical etymologies, given the sets "Jewish values" and "Christian values", is "Judeo-Christian values" the union or the intersection of the sets?

I'd dispute both those claims. First off, "there's a difference between right and wrong" is not identical with "right and wrong are absolutes". How orthogonal "Judeo-christian" is to that depends on where you stand...so I'll embrace some relativism on *that* point. :-)

The "moral equivalance" I take issue with would hold that the actions of Hezbu'lah and those of Israel have equal moral standing, and I think that's totally bogus. Anyway, being neither Jewish nor Christian I'm not defending Chris Muir's use of "Judeo-christian" in pointing out the bankruptcy of "moral equivilance"...it just happened to be today's Day-by-Day.

Moral absolutism says that morals exist on an objective basis, outside of the minds of humans (often but not always as dictates from God). If that isn't the case, then morals are subjective.

Of course, even if there are objective morals, there's still the question of how to discover what they are, since everyone disagrees.Of course, after the philosophical discussion above, that stuff isn't really useful. Whether morals are objective, subjective, or relative is more suited to a philosophy class than politics, but when "moral relativists" becomes some sort of political insult it has to be dealt with to some extent.

On a practical level, however, I'd agree that Israel is better than Hezbu'lah, but that doesn't excuse any of the bad things they do.Good, because I have a strong suspicion that people using the term "Judeo-Christian" are usually talking out of their ass.

classic avoidance berhaviour...... faced with moralistic issue you can't cope with, you turn the thread into a dictionary thread.



(PS The lebbonese death toll is now over 300 - how many fighters does Hezbollah have, and whats the minimum age?)

I guess you're having reading comprehension issues. No worries, I'm sure you'll catch up.

I'm coping just fine. The Israelis have a right to defend themselves; that their attackers choose to hide among the (relatively) innocent is not their fault.

mmmm.... the attackers are hiding amongst the (relatively) innocent? But, presumably, not very well as the IDF seem able to find enough targets. Pedrhaps the IDF think Hezbollah are trolls, hiding under bridges.... or maybe hoodies, living in the inner-city apartment blocks....


and are you really sure you want to with that 'hiding amongst (relatively) innocent' remark? Think long before you answer.....

I suspect you didn't realize when you wrote this, how much it revealed about you.

In any discussion intended to rise above the level of shouting-match, terms must be defined and agreed upon. Otherwise, you don't really understand what the other person is saying. To stop and define terms is the mark of reason.

Don't let me stop you, though. Shout away.

Perhaps, dar, but I'm not the one liviing in Neverland.

Well enough to elicit maximum propiganda value, that being their pupose. But this time even Hezbullah's usual friends (as distinct from their direct patrons in Syria and Iran) in the region aren't so strongly behind them as they usually are.

Maybe they know something you don't. Or maybe they're just not as dogmatically encumbered...now wouldn't that be ironic.