|
"There is no neutral ground between good and evil"
Shrub
Quote:
Why does he have to talk at the level of a 5 year old?? |
he knows his audience?
the people he's trying to convince seem to have a difficult time with simple concepts. -sm |
Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Quote:
|
Why feed into the fucktardom that is scrunchy? Ignore it. It will go away.
|
Well, he does bring up a good point, in that the President seems to believe that good and evil are simple, easily definable, black-or-white absolutes. (Which is something that I consider to be extremely dangerous in a person, much less a guy with the keys to the nuclear football.)
|
Quote:
I'm not really disagreeing with your main point as much as its implications. And do you really worry about W pushing the nuke-U-ler button? I don't. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Indeed. Hence the "he considers".
|
Quote:
Let's get facts straight you fuckwitted imbecile. I came here to debate you inbred, but that seems to be beyond the capability of you and a few others so you resorted to insults. If you dont like my threads stay to fuck out of them, okay? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Doesn't Life Require Compromise?
"A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal. It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise... There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender - the recognition of his right to one's property. What value or concession did the burglar offer in return? and once the principle of unilateral concessions is accepted as the base of a relationship by both parties, it is only a matter of time before the burglar would seize the rest... There can be no compromise between freedom and government controls; to accept "just a few controls" is to surrender the principle of inalienable individual rights and to substitute for it the principle of the government's unlimited arbitrary power, thus delivering oneself into gradual enslavement... Today, however, when people speak of "compromise", what they mean is not a legitimate mutual concession or a trade, but precisely the betrayal of one's principles - the unilateral surrender to any groundless, irrational claim. The root of that doctrine is ethical subjectivism, which holds that a desire or whim is an irreducible moral primary, that every man is entitled to any desire he might feel like asserting, that all desires have equal moral validity, and that the only way men can get along together is by giving in to anything and "compromising" with anyone. It is not hard to see who would profit and who would lose by such a doctrine. The immorality of this doctrine - and the reason why the term "compromise" implies, in today's general usage, an act of moral treason - lies in the fact that it requires men to accept ethical subjectivism as the basic principle superceding all principles in human relationships and to sacrifice anything as a concession to one another's whims.... The excuse given in all such cases, is that the "compromise" is only temporary and that one will reclaim one's integrity at some indeterminate future date. But one cannot correct a husband or wife's irrationality by giving in to it and allowing it to grow. One cannot achieve the victory of one's ideas by helping to propagate their opposite. One cannot offer a literary masterpiece, "when one has become rich and famous," to a following one has acquired by writing trash. If one found it difficult to maintain one's loyalty to one's own convictions at the start, a succession of betrayals - which help augment the power of the evil one lacked the courage to fight - will not make it easier at a later date, but will make it virtually impossible. There can be no compromise on moral principles. "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit." ( Atlas Shrugged. ) The next time you are tempted to ask: "Doesn't life require compromise?", translate that question into it's actual meaning: Doesn't life require the surrender of that which is true and good to that which is false and evil?" The answer is that that precisely is what life forbids - if one wishes to achieve anything but a stretch of tortured years spent in progressive self-destruction." -Ayn Rand, 1962, from The Virtue of Selfishness And additionally, regarding the RTKBA: "The necessary consequence of man's right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative." "If some 'pacifist' society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it." -Ayn Rand, 1962, from The Virtue of Selfishness ( Recommended! Excellent reading on her rational Objectivist philosophy! ) http://www.upalliance.org/comprom.htm |
holy crap. is radar backing the dubya?
-sm |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.