RandFan said:
It has everything to do with skepticism. We should never abandon critical thinking for any reason. Refusing to do so makes us willfuly blind. Simply accepting assertions because it SOUNDS good is wrong. It doesn't mater if it is politics or science. We must not abandon objectivity.
It's a big shame, then, that you don't understand this topic at all.
Moral decisions cannot directly come from what is. This was outlined by the skeptical and great philosopher David Hume. It is called the "Is-Ought fallacy"-- you cannot derive what ought to be from what is.
Critical thinking does not tell us what we should do, unless, say, you are looking for the most efficient course of action. Critical thinking will not tell us killing is "wrong", eating meat is "not wrong", etc. It will tell us that such sins do not objectively exist, that they are simply personal preference, but no "is" gives us what action we should take from it (unless, again, that you are looking to complete a particular goal, but no "is" tells us what that ultimate goal should be. No "is" tells us whether to value personal freedom or economic egalitarianism.).
You are basically saying something along the lines of "we must use critical thinking to decide which foods taste the best! We must use critical thinking to decide our favorite color!" Morals are essentially no different. It's a shame you don't understand this topic.
This is simply rhetoric and you have not substantiated this belief. Again, you are drinking the Kool-Aid of the left.
This is an opinion, that he is an enemy. I say he is an enemy because he does things that are anti-thetical to a free society, and society would be freer had he never been born (assuming no similar-minded replacement).
This has nothing to do with the left, either. Do you even understand what you are talking about? The "left" has nothing to do with opposition to tyranny, they are mutually exclusive. Using your "logic" our founding fathers were leftists because they chased out the British.
I had no doubt that you would.
You're a senseless jerk. Of course you knew I would, given my original post was about tyrannical government. Pointing it out to act smug doesn't contribute anything.
Hitler was systematically murdering an entire race of people. Hitler invaded sovereign nations and killed many innocent people without provocation. While it is ok to show that intentions are not sufficient to justify actions you have not shown that Ashcroft's actions justify such a comparison.
I never compared the actual actions in severity, only the intent. Your delusions are getting ahold of you again! Yes, I realize I'm being impolite now, but you made the mistake of prodding me by being rude in the first place and intentionally remaining ignorant to what I wrote. I do not suffer fools well.
Of course not, and PLEASE pay close attention to the difference. I DON'T demonize them or compare them to Hitler.
Did you catch the distinction?
The only distinction is between intrusions of liberty that are only relatively smaller.
You have not established this but instead assume that we all agree. Again, this is not objective and posting on a skeptics site demands better.
We almost universally agree that we would be better off without Ashcroft or an equivalent. This follows naturally. If you want to argue that Ashcroft was not such a bad guy, then be my guest.
I would gladly fight them. I hardly see such actions as reason to demonize them.
Anyone who censors free speech, in a government position (not a private one where they have domain over what can be said on their property) deserves the strictist rebuking. Of course, you exhibit a blind trust and an almost childlike loyalty to those in command, and seem to think that they get a free pass for thinking they are doing the right thing.
I would not celebrate their deaths. I don't see your point.
That's nice. I would, because people who lessen the quality of life of I and others using government force (actively taking away would should be mine) are better off gone.
And of course, even if it does not and never will directly affect me, I will believe that anyone who takes away individual liberties is a horrible person.
And humans are soulless machines. Other people, to me, may be tools or objects to be used to meet various ends. That sounds cold, but it is the reality to all of us. It does leave behind a wrong connotation, that I am an emotionless, manipulating sociopath, but that is not true. I feel very much for even socialists who have their civil liberties violated. I can't help but feel such.
In any event, you and I agree that what these individuals have done is demonstrably reprehensible. Further their actions had nothing to do with law enforcement and the need to protect an entire nation. These individuals did not have difficult choices but instead chose to exploit people because of greed. This is a very poor comparison.
You brought them up, I gave you my opinion on them as well. They are frauds. I am not advocating they be put to death, I certainly don't think so. I am saying the world is better off without them, and they are horrible beings. They are certainly in a class different than government employees, who employ force, but that does not make their existence a positive thing.
Human or mosquito, if you're a pest, you are essentially better off dead to me, because with you gone, my quality of life improves. I believe in "live and let live", essentially, and those wh o interefere with freedom are the worst of all.
Pffft, secular humanism. What a joke-- humans having fundamental worth no matter what they do to others is a joke.
I would put the sins of Aschroft in the same boat as Roosevelt who took away the civil rights of many Japanese. Both men did wrong. I cannot excuse either. However I can understand the decisions and thought processes behind the actions of both. I am deeply disappointed but I don't see malice or ill will. I see a difficult problem without simple solutions.
The problem is the idiocy and dogmas of the individual. The solution is simple: liberty. They are a horrendous stain on a free society.
Had I been alive during Roosevelt's time I would not have celebrated his death. I would have been deeply disappointed that he imprisoned Japanese Americans.
You are the person who stands by and is simply "disappointed" until it is YOU that gets screwed over. Had a Japanese man assassinated FDR because of his executive order I would consider him to be a national hero for fighting for his personal liberties.
I simply see no basis whatsoever for your attempts to demonize Ashcroft. The left has been churning out hate and propaganda against him from the moment he took office. You have shown no willingness to question that propaganda. You simply accept it ALL as true and you have never even heard Ashcrofts rebuttal to all of the charges, have you?
Oh no, me demonize a man who supports censoring obscenity! Why, the OUTRAGE! The gall of me questioning a man who persecutes/prosecutes those who personally offend him!
I have not been closely following charges made against Ashcroft. I don't even really care-- he has supported prosecuting on obscenity, and to someone who cherishes freedom of speech (even for my biggest and most hated enemies) this is probably the gravest "sin" of all.
This thread has been derailed enough. If you wish to discuss things like "fundamental worth" and the consequences of actions and how they relate to a person's life, bring it up on the philosophy board, where I will proceed to humilate you.
And if you do, please explain why I should assign people special value simply on being another human alone, and why I should not assign such values to dogs, cats, fleas, ticks, rocks, and carbon-14 isotopes.
. So accept what they did was "wrong", then, yet they certainly did not think so. You have essentially proved my point in your incessant whining.