Time for Walker to call in the National Guard

[PrinceofWands]

In all your pseudo intellectual you still come back to the same point that I made.

You favor a society ruled by the judgment of each individual as to what is moral or right, as opposed to the society as a whole.

I'll ask the same question again, and I would like you to answer very concisely.

If a police officer believes abortion is wrong, immoral, and absolutely unacceptable, should he look the other way when somebody is getting ready to bomb an abortion clinic?

In my opinion that person shouldn't look the other way, they should light the fuse. They HAVE to light the fuse. Otherwise they're contributing to what they perceive as evil, and are therefore themselves evil. Once a person sees themselves as either lacking power, or part of the wrong power, they lose themselves and cease to produce for the good at all.

Now, mind you, they can't do that AND be on the job, as it's a conflict of interests. They need to do something they can believe in. That's why I never went into law enforcement. I would refuse to arrest people for marijuana possession, and would absolutely execute anyone CERTAIN to have committed rape. That means that even though my skillset and education are perfect for the career, my ethics do not permit it (ie I won't sink that low).

This doesn't mean THEY rule society, it means they rule themselves, and will not contribute to the decay of society (as they see it). Individuals are responsible for their own actions, and accountable to their own consciences. Period.

 

[PeshakJang]

In my opinion that person shouldn't look the other way, they should light the fuse. They HAVE to light the fuse. Otherwise they're contributing to what they perceive as evil, and are therefore themselves evil. Once a person sees themselves as either lacking power, or part of the wrong power, they lose themselves and cease to produce for the good at all.

Now, mind you, they can't do that AND be on the job, as it's a conflict of interests. They need to do something they can believe in. That's why I never went into law enforcement. I would refuse to arrest people for marijuana possession, and would absolutely execute anyone CERTAIN to have committed rape. That means that even though my skillset and education are perfect for the career, my ethics do not permit it (ie I won't sink that low).

This doesn't mean THEY rule society, it means they rule themselves, and will not contribute to the decay of society (as they see it). Individuals are responsible for their own actions, and accountable to their own consciences. Period.

Got it. You're an anarchist. You could have just said that to begin with.

 

[PeshakJang]

In my opinion that person shouldn't look the other way, they should light the fuse. They HAVE to light the fuse. Otherwise they're contributing to what they perceive as evil, and are therefore themselves evil. Once a person sees themselves as either lacking power, or part of the wrong power, they lose themselves and cease to produce for the good at all.

It's also funny how this completely refutes your just-now objection to the Bush/Iraq comparison. If Bush perceived that Iraq was evil, and was going to commit evil acts, he HAD to invade, otherwise the US would be contributing to evil, and would be evil itself.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Got it. You're an anarchist. You could have just said that to begin with.

Not in the least. Anarchists oppose government, and standing law. I do not. I merely acknowledge that one cannot serve law BEFORE serving justice, truth, etc. I'm all for government, and I'm all for law...as guidelines. I'm also all for acknowledging that they are fallible, and not worshiping them. I recognize that if we're going to worship it has to be the foundations of that government and the foundations of that law.

I also embrace the notion of nation by agreement, and not by border. In other words, people should form homogeneous nations of ideas. There is NO WAY a theocrat can be in a country with an atheist. There is NO WAY a free-marketeer can follow the same set of laws and government structure as a socialist. NO WAY. It's not that one is right, and the other wrong, but their beliefs and preferences are incompatible.

 

[PrinceofWands]

It's also funny how this completely refutes your just-now objection to the Bush/Iraq comparison. If Bush perceived that Iraq was evil, and was going to commit evil acts, he HAD to invade, otherwise the US would be contributing to evil, and would be evil itself.

No, it supports my argument. If Bush thought Iraq was evil HE needed to invade. As in grab a rifle and go get em. By using his position to order others to do what he believed he violated the basic precept (and the foundational rules of his position).

A person can try to convince others of their position, but they cannot force others to follow. To do so is an evil act.

 

[PeshakJang]

Not in the least. Anarchists oppose government, and standing law. I do not. I merely acknowledge that one cannot serve law BEFORE serving justice, truth, etc. I'm all for government, and I'm all for law...as guidelines. I'm also all for acknowledging that they are fallible, and not worshiping them. I recognize that if we're going to worship it has to be the foundations of that government and the foundations of that law.

I also embrace the notion of nation by agreement, and not by border. In other words, people should form homogeneous nations of ideas. There is NO WAY a theocrat can be in a country with an atheist. There is NO WAY a free-marketeer can follow the same set of laws and government structure as a socialist. NO WAY. It's not that one is right, and the other wrong, but their beliefs and preferences are incompatible.

No, you are an anarchist. You believe that each individual should do what their moral compass compels them to do, regardless of law. Your statement that one who opposes abortion HAS to light the fuse to bomb an abortion clinic is case in point. Once you accept what you are, you can work toward getting better.

You believe that man should act to do what he feels is right, based on his own beliefs and values. By this logic, nobody who considers themselves religious should consider themselves bound by any laws of man. And since different religions have different moral platitudes, all should act in accordance with what they believe, even if that means killing the other, "evil" people.

This is the problem with anarchists like you. You don't really know what you believe. You spout a bunch of feel-good nonsense that sounds nice, but your arguments fall apart at the first hint of reality. You believe that everyone should do what they feel is moral, but then you allude to the fact that there is only one moral "right", which you base on your own beliefs (case in point, your Bush comparison), while trying to explain away discrepancies as simply counter-examples of what you *really* mean (whatever that really is).

Nice try.

 

[PeshakJang]

No, it supports my argument. If Bush thought Iraq was evil HE needed to invade. As in grab a rifle and go get em. By using his position to order others to do what he believed he violated the basic precept (and the foundational rules of his position).

A person can try to convince others of their position, but they cannot force others to follow. To do so is an evil act.

He didn't have the power as one man to go there and do anything. He had the position as the leader of the most powerful Army in the world. He used his power for what he felt was going to stop evil. to not do so would be an evil act in your eyes.

You honestly aren't even being consistent within your own argument. This is the sign of having a weak argument, by the way.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, you are an anarchist. You believe that each individual should do what their moral compass compels them to do, regardless of law. Your statement that one who opposes abortion HAS to light the fuse to bomb an abortion clinic is case in point. Once you accept what you are, you can work toward getting better.

You believe that man should act to do what he feels is right, based on his own beliefs and values. By this logic, nobody who considers themselves religious should consider themselves bound by any laws of man. And since different religions have different moral platitudes, all should act in accordance with what they believe, even if that means killing the other, "evil" people.

This is the problem with anarchists like you. You don't really know what you believe. You spout a bunch of feel-good nonsense that sounds nice, but your arguments fall apart at the first hint of reality. You believe that everyone should do what they feel is moral, but then you allude to the fact that there is only one moral "right", which you base on your own beliefs (case in point, your Bush comparison), while trying to explain away discrepancies as simply counter-examples of what you *really* mean (whatever that really is).

Nice try.

I cannot be an anarchist if I believe in government and the existence of laws. I do believe in such, therefore by definition I am NOT an anarchist. Everything else is you trying to inject your own biased perceptions of my beliefs in an attempt to discredit or discount them (or simply being incapable of understanding them). Either way, the burden is on you, not me.

You portray the religious example as a bad thing, which you'd think I'd agree with since I'm opposed to religion. In point of fact, however, I support that notion. Here's why: religion is nothing more than a system of belief - a philosophy. In this it is essentially the same as an economic system, or a legal system, or a system of government. Therefore we're still dealing the same core issue of standing up for what you believe to be right against the backdrop of the power of an opposing belief system. ANYONE who claims people have no right to oppose what they're against MUST agree that we should all still be living under a system of slavery where ******s are chattel and bitches are baby machines who should shut the fuck up and mind their place, and MUST agree with the extermination of European Jews/Gays/etc. It was ONLY through the application of force in opposition that these things were ended after all. There is NO in between. Either people can stand for what they believe, or they can't. Period.

This entire system of belief is why I support fragmentation of nations to homogeneous entities. In such an environment religions wouldn't have to fight each other, because they wouldn't be mixed with each other vying for control over each other. IF we force opposing views to live under the same authority, then we MUST encourage warfare between them until only one view remains. Nothing else is logical.

Yes, I believe what Bush did is evil. Others believe it wasn't. We're both right for ourselves, but neither for the other. Total subjectivism. How can the two sides POSSIBLE coexist? Answer: they can't. EITHER we kill each other to the last man and that man decides the course for everyone to come after, or we split our governance and let each side establish government and law and societal outlook as they deem necessary. It's the only possibilities.

 

[PrinceofWands]

He didn't have the power as one man to go there and do anything. He had the position as the leader of the most powerful Army in the world. He used his power for what he felt was going to stop evil. to not do so would be an evil act in your eyes.

You honestly aren't even being consistent within your own argument. This is the sign of having a weak argument, by the way.

I've been fully consistent, 100% of the time. You're just refusing, or unable, to see that. The weakness is utterly yours.

I have said, plainly and clearly, from the onset, that the decision of personal action is PERSONAL, and does NOT carry the authority to force others to similar action. In fact, I have said clearly that it is that forcing of belief upon others which is the core of the problem with law as interpreted today. The power in question was NOT George W Bush's, it was that of the President of the United States. The man's beliefs and opinions MUST NOT determine the acts of the office. When you cross that line, it's abuse.

An individual may attempt to convince, but cannot coerce. One is agency, the other evil. That goes doubly for an elected official, one who is supposed to represent the people. If they act against the wishes of those people (which they must, since people never agree), then their acts are always forceful and corrupting.

Look back to the original argument of the leo at the capital. I said clearly that he should not participate, not that he should insinuate and use his position to further the other side...in other words, he should act on his own beliefs ONLY outside of neutral vested authority.