Bataan Death March Survivor Dies

[Selene]

"The size of the US government today is a living tribute to peoples' utter failure to govern themselves," you say. Now if it is true, as you have often claimed, that people get the government they deserve, then the size of the government today must be exactly right. If it were any smaller, it could not perform its function of serving up just deserts, of which you apparently approve.

Furthermore, since you "have no complaints about how the government treats" you, then government must be close to perfect.

Wow, do you perceive that as a valid argument?

[Francisco Ferrer]

The validity of an argument exists independently of one person's perception of it,

[Selene]

The validity of an argument exists independently of one persons' perception of it,

To a degree that is accurate.

However, as Aristotle noted, there are three "forms," or, "elements," or, elements of rhetoric (argumentation/persuasion):

logos;

pathos; and

ethos.

The character of the person offering the argument certainly matters when evaluating it's truthfulness.

I should have used the truthful.

A...

[moralist]

why was it necessary to have a Thirteenth Amendment?

Because morality is a constant process of growth. Do you know what that means? The self correcting mechanisms within the Constitution allow for the moral growth of a nation should it choose to walk that upward path.

You know, I could just as well be talking with a secular leftist libertine. Your view is indistinguishable from theirs. Nevertheless I find it to be entertaining. It's interesting to watch you go on about how "evil" the founders of America were. How they didn't live up to your imaginary utopia of ideological purity. Many people who fail in their own lives excuse their own failure by tearing down others instead of learning and growing to become better people themselves...

...and this is why you don't understand that morality is a constant process of growth.

Greg

[moralist]

"The size of the US government today is a living tribute to peoples' utter failure to govern themselves," you say. Now if it is true, as you have often claimed, that people get the government they deserve, then the size of the government today must be exactly right.

The US government is exactly what wrong people have created it to be... and what they created in their own image treats them just as wrongly as they are.

If it were any smaller, it could not perform its function of serving up just deserts, of which you apparently approve.

It is just the right size to give people exactly what they deserve... for they're the ones who made it that size.

Furthermore, since you "have no complaints about how the government treats" you, then government must be close to perfect.

Moral justice is perfect.

Just as today in America, the government can treat someone as wrong as they are, Today in America, the government can also treat a person as right as they are. This is because today in America the government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that everyone does. Today in America no one is exempt. Today in America, each of our individual experiences of government are determined by how we are living our lives. Understanding that fact holds true today in America, I can state that my experience today of how the government treats me is quite different from your experience today how the government treats you. This is because we each live by different moral standards.

(Gotta keep reminding you that this is right here and right now... or otherwise you'll just keep sticking your head back up your past. )

Greg

[Jules Troy]

Ever wonder how much shit on us the NSA catalogs from this and other sites?

[Brant Gaede]

The validity of an argument exists independently of one persons' perception of it,

To a degree that is accurate.

However, as Aristotle noted, there are three "forms," or, "elements," or, elements of rhetoric (argumentation/persuasion):

logos;

pathos; and

ethos.

The character of the person offering the argument certainly matters when evaluating it's truthfulness.

I should have used the truthful.

A...

No, when evaluating whether it's worth your time to evaluate an argument as such considering past deportment is one thing, but otherwise--how? Where does "to a degree fit in?"

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

why was it necessary to have a Thirteenth Amendment?

Because morality is a constant process of growth. Do you know what that means? The self correcting mechanisms within the Constitution allow for the moral growth of a nation should it choose to walk that upward path.

You know, I could just as well be talking with a secular leftist libertine. Your view is indistinguishable from theirs. Nevertheless I find it to be entertaining. It's interesting to watch you go on about how "evil" the founders of America were. How they didn't live up to your imaginary utopia of ideological purity. Many people who fail in their own lives excuse their own failure by tearing down others instead of learning and growing to become better people themselves...

...and this is why you don't understand that morality is a constant process of growth.

Greg

"Morality is a process of growth"? That must mean that an individual cannot be held morally accountable until he's had sufficient time to grow accustomed to a moral code. We can't, for example, expect people to follow the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal," until they've gotten comfortable with the idea. Perhaps no punishment even for third offenders. And maybe there should be no penalties for those still practicing human sacrifice. They're still growing, aren't they? According to your argument, that means that slavery was justifiable at the time of the Founding because Americans had not grown up to be big boys and girls yet and rejected it. Ownership of human beings: perfectly legitimate in 1787; a heinous crime in 1865.

Three points:

First of all, none of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were minors and thus hardly exempt from the responsibility of making moral judgments.

Secondly, most of the 13 original states abolished slavery within a dozen years after the Constitution went into effect. The fact that it remained intact in the South (and was protected by the Constitution) had nothing to do with with slowness of moral growth but with political power and the preservation of wealth in human chattel.

Finally, speaking of "secular leftist libertines," the process of growth argument is relativistic nonsense and can be used to justify any horror. We could argue with as much merit that genocide in Russia, China and Cambodia happened simply because the backward rulers there, poor things, hadn't had the opportunity to "grow" yet.

To conclude, if the moral growth argument means that those that benefited from the original Constitution and its Fugitive Slave Clause were "a moral and religious people," then it would follow that slaves had no right to run away from their bondage to these godly folk, and that those who sought to help runaways escape were violators of property rights. Slavery is legitimate as long as the slaveholder has not yet had sufficient time and space to grow yet.

Just as today in America, the government can treat someone as wrong as they are, Today in America, the government can also treat a person as right as they are. This is because today in America the government answers to exactly the same higher moral law that everyone does. Today in America no one is exempt. Today in America, each of our individual experiences of government are determined by how we are living our lives. Understanding that fact holds true today in America, I can state that my experience today of how the government treats me is quite different from your experience today how the government treats you. This is because we each live by different moral standards.

Then, apparently, the size of government today must be perfect: exactly big enough to give the welfarists and the socialists what they deserve. One who believes in justice would therefore have to oppose any reduction in the size of government for such reduction would render the government ineffective at delivering just deserts.

[Brant Gaede]

Since Greg eschews reason as foundational for his arguments two things happen: his arguments tend to be circular and ad hominem. Here we're going back and forth between the Constitution, which represents some kind of hard core serious perfection and the person being argued with who is not perfect. Greg, as perfect himself--he's never wrong in his arguments nor can you knock them down in his head factually or logically--is telling Francisco he's a failure in his own life. I admire him for not taking any public offense, but have to point out that no matter what he says Greg will just keep repeating himself. I got tired of the game so I put Greg on my "ignore" list and while I still read a lot of his stuff the function means I think twice before replying to anything he writes and never directly.

--Brant

I also got tired of being insulted in Greg's special way

[BaalChatzaf]

Ever wonder how much shit on us the NSA catalogs from this and other sites?

Let them

[Jules Troy]

Hey Bob, just a note of well wishing and goodwill to any friends/ relatives you may have in Israel being rocketed by HAMAS atm.

[moralist]

"Morality is a process of growth"?

Yes it is... but being a secular libertine, you haven't the foggiest notion of what that means.

That must mean that an individual cannot be held morally accountable until he's had sufficient time to grow accustomed to a moral code.

Well, I had just said that you're clueless, and your comment confirms it yet again. That actually means that an individual is constantly held morally accountable for their actions. Both you and I are getting exactly what we each deserve as the consequences of our own actions. That is what it means to be morally accountable. Our two views on this will always differ. I'm just stating my view to clearly contrast it to yours.

We can't, for example, expect people to follow the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal," until they've gotten comfortable with the idea.

That's the liberal view of subjective feelings of comfort determining your morality. You're firmly in their camp on that topic. The behavior of an extreme right wing secular libertine is indistinguishable from that of a radical leftist libertine.

Greg

[moralist]

Hey Bob, just a note of well wishing and goodwill to any friends/ relatives you may have in Israel being rocketed by HAMAS atm.

That's very kind of you, Jules.

Greg

[moralist]

Greg, as perfect himself--

Becoming personally offended is always a personal choice...

...and choosing to become offended is the natural result of choosing to believe a lie. You chose to become emotionally offended because you operate under the falsehood that I've claimed to be perfect... when exactly the opposite is the truth. I've always included myself as being personally accountable to exactly the same moral law as everyone else, and have mentioned numerous times that no one is exempt from getting the consequences they deserve from their own actions... and that has always included me.

So it comes down to a matter of priority when becoming offended becomes more important than seeing that it is the belief in the lie which makes becoming upset ~feel~ right when it's not right.

...is telling Francisco he's a failure in his own life.

There's nothing personal about a general moral principle. Everyone who lives in the dead past is a failure in the present. That's why they live in the dead past. For Frank there is no Civil War and there are no Constitutional amendments. He needs to live in the dead past prior to those events so as to be able to wallow in condemning the Founding Fathers as being "evil". There is a price paid for that attitude... it is being a failure in the present. It is impossible to become a successful person in the present while being immersed in intellectual fantasies of the dead past, because they are incapable of making prudent spontaneous decisions necessary to properly deal with the present as it is occurring. Their timing will always be off, and that is a guarantee of failure.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

"Morality is a process of growth"?

Yes it is... but being a secular libertine, you haven't the foggiest notion of what that means.

That must mean that an individual cannot be held morally accountable until he's had sufficient time to grow accustomed to a moral code.

Well, I had just said that you're clueless, and your comment confirms it yet again. That actually means that an individual is constantly held morally accountable for their actions. Both you and I are getting exactly what we each deserve as the consequences of our own actions. That is what it means to be morally accountable. Our two views on this will always differ. I'm just stating my view to clearly contrast it to yours.

We can't, for example, expect people to follow the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Steal," until they've gotten comfortable with the idea.

That's the liberal view of subjective feelings of comfort determining your morality. You're firmly in their camp on that topic. The behavior of an extreme right wing secular libertine is indistinguishable from that of a radical leftist libertine.

Greg

Now we're getting somewhere. If an "individual is constantly held morally accountable for their actions," then the slaveholders of 1789, whose property in human chattel was protected and preserved by the original makers and designers of this republic, can be judged for their violations of the rights of men, women and children and properly described as immoral. Therefore, the following statements are false:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people

It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams

"The American system of government was designed to work only for decent people." --Moralist

The Constitution, the American system of government, which explicitly included the means to force runaway slaves back into involuntary servitude, was made, designed to work not only for moral people, but for violators of human rights on a grand scale.

[Brant Gaede]

The Constitution was designed to be accepted by all 13 former colonies. The Constitution was and is basically an instrument of state power: you can get in but you can't get out (re the Civil War). What it actually says has some ancillary value for freedom if so interpreted. Not the case in the case of John Roberts' twisted reasoning in support of Obamacare. Roberts wasn't afraid of the citizenry, he was afraid of Obama and his progressive big media Democrat lackeys.

--Brant

the argument about people getting what they deserve from government is specious until demonstrated instead of merely repeated time and time again

if Francisco interprets the "dead past" in a way not to Greg's liking he's "immersed" in it and incapable of functioning properly in the present while Greg himself isn't though he does the same thing to a different, desirable--to him--conclusion and, of course,Greg will deny any such thing apropos himself--and deny, just deny it, it without using any logic whatsoever

[Jules Troy]

The world according to Garp!(I mean Greg)

[moralist]

the argument about people getting what they deserve from government is specious until demonstrated instead of merely repeated time and time again

That statement is quite simple to test for yourself. Right here and right now, does the US government treat you as decent as you are? I'm not talking about what the drivel you see on the TV news. I mean you, directly, personally, in the real world, as an individual.

It treats me as decent as I am... because both the US government and I answer to exactly the same higher moral law.

if Francisco interprets the "dead past" in a way not to Greg's liking he's "immersed" in it and incapable of functioning properly in the present while Greg himself isn't though he does the same thing to a different, desirable--to him--conclusion and, of course,Greg will deny any such thing apropos himself--and deny, just deny it, it without using any logic whatsoever

It might be good for you to do a better job of ignoring me, Brant.

You're just going to get drawn in again and end up offended.

Greg

[moralist]

Now we're getting somewhere....

You're getting nowhere because you're still stuck in the dead past, and that is what produces failure in the present.

If an "individual is constantly held morally accountable for their actions,"

Both you and I are constantly held morally accountable for our actions right here and now in the real world. You know the results for yourself in how your own life has turned out.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Then the Framers would have to be held morally accountable for providing the Constitutional means to keep men, women and children in a lifetime of bondage by requiring all state governments to enforce slavery at taxpayers' expense, even in places where no one or most residents did not own slaves.

“They [Africans] certainly must have been created with less intellectual power than the whites, and were most probably intended to serve them, and be the instruments of their cultivation.” – Charles Pinckney, Constitutional delegate and author of the Fugitive Slave Clause

[BaalChatzaf]

Then the Framers would have to be held morally accountable for providing the Constitutional means to keep men, women and children in a lifetime of bondage by requiring all state governments to enforce slavery at taxpayers' expense, even in places where no one or most residents did not own slaves.

“They [Africans] certainly must have been created with less intellectual power than the whites, and were most probably intended to serve them, and be the instruments of their cultivation.” – Charles Pinckney, Constitutional delegate and author of the Fugitive Slave Clause

Bad ideas produce bad results.

[Brant Gaede]

The Underground Railroad ended in Canada. I don't know about "free states" return of property policies and how those interacted with the use of the so-called "railroad."

--Brant

[moralist]

Then the Framers...

Go for it Frank...

Wallow in your addiction to condemning dead people in the dead past.

That's what people who fail to do what's right in the present need to do.

Greg

[PDS]

Then the Framers...

Go for it Frank...

Wallow in your addiction to condemning dead people in the dead past.

That's what people who fail to do what's right in the present need to do.

Greg

I have been MIA for awhile. And notwithstanding the ignore function, I just couldn't help but sneak a peak at my favorite commenter.

Good to see that Greg is bringing his usual intellectual rigor and consistency to the debates around here.

He lifts his leg to pee on the very same part of the lawn here at OL, and at exactly the same angle, no matter the day of the week, the topic at hand, or whether the owner is staring out the window watching. I give him points for that at least.

[Brant Gaede]

Then the Framers...

Go for it Frank...

Wallow in your addiction to condemning dead people in the dead past.

That's what people who fail to do what's right in the present need to do.

Greg

I have been MIA for awhile. And notwithstanding the ignore function, I just couldn't help but sneak a peak at my favorite commenter.

Good to see that Greg is bringing his usual intellectual rigor and consistency to the debates around here.

He lifts his leg to pee on the very same part of the lawn here at OL, and at exactly the same angle, no matter the day of the week, the topic at hand, or whether the owner is staring out the window watching. I give him points for that at least.

Greg talks like the preacher in church.

--Brant