DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

BottleBob wrote:
wrote:

Yet you apparently support a war that is illegal and immoral.

IPSmith:

Let's see if we can pin down a couple of facts.

Sure.

Jpsmith:

I'm sorry, I've been calling you *I* psmith, when I now see that it's
*J* psmith. I suppose I should lower the resolution of my monitor, or
get a larger monitor. I wonder, do they make reasonably priced 26"
monitors, this 21 incher doesn't seem to be doing it for me any longer.

You claim that the war
in IRAQ is "illegal", could you list the specific law that's binding
on
the U.S. that you believe is being broken?

The U.S. is a party to various treaties which clearly prohibit
aggressive war, treaties like the UN Charter.

I thought "treaties" were essentially just agreements entered into by
two or more parties/countries. What punitive powers does the UN have to
enforce such agreements?

I guess I incorrectly assumed that this was common knowledge. Our
government run schools have apparently seen to it that most Americans
are utterly clueless in such matters.

I wouldn't necessarily blame U.S. schools, it's been many decades since
I was in school, and since I'm pretty much non-political, the
intricacies of treaty law are not of great interest to me. But I see in
Encarta that there are a number of ways to terminate a treaty.

================================================== ===============
TERMINATION
Treaties may be terminated in various ways. The treaty itself may
provide for its termination at a specified time or it may allow one
party to give notice of termination, effective either at the time of
receipt or following the expiration of a specified period. A treaty may
be terminated by one signatory's repudiation of its obligations; such a
unilateral termination, however, may provoke retaliatory measures. A
treaty may also be terminated by reliance on the principle rebus sic
stantibus ("things remaining that way"), that is, when the state of
affairs assumed by the signatory parties (when they signed the treaty,
and therefore the real basis of the treaty), no longer exists, and a
substantial change in conditions has taken place.

"Treaty," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. © 1993-1999 Microsoft
Corporation. All rights reserved.
================================================== ================

You claim the war is "immoral".

First of all, not all war is immoral, in my view. Obviously, it depends
on the circumstances. Those circumstances are spelled out generally in
treaties, and morally elucidated in the "Doctrine of Just War". Look it
up.

I'm always willing to learn something new, so I looked it up. Most of
the "Just War Doctrine" sites seem to be intertwined with Catholic and
Christian ethics.
Now since I don't believe in the basic tenets of Catholic or Christian
dogma, the more convoluted reasoning that is based upon that dogma seems
to have no solid foundation, in my own opinion of course.

Put simply, aggressive war is immoral, defensive war is not.

That seems like another case of a personal (or group), value judgment.
Certain sects of Muslims believe it's their Moral Duty to convert or
exterminate infidels. So a person could conclude that "from their point
of view" an aggressive war is indeed a moral one.

In the case of Bush's present war against Iraq, it's plain to see that
it's immoral...it takes no sophisticated moral reasoning, IMO.

There are obviously those that believe otherwise.

Could you please define what "immoral"
means to you.

In one important general sense regarding individual behavior, "immoral"
simply means doing something to someone else, directly or indirectly,
that you know you would not want done to yourself. Simple really.

So essentially you are saying that your moral compass is governed by a
sort of "negative golden rule", correct?

It's when people don't follow this simple Christian doctrine of
reciprocity, usually necessitating the involvement of third parties,
that things get complicated.

Well there's that word "Christian" again. You seem to be concluding
that Christian moral systems are the only valid moral systems.

I not going to sit here and say I have all the answers, either. I
don't, and I won't pretend to.

That seems like an intelligent perspective. So why are you so verbally
abusive of those who hold differing viewpoints? I thought you ascribed
to the "negative golden rule" where you don't treat others in a manner
that you wouldn't want to be treated yourself.

snip a bunch of interesting stuff due to time constraints

If someone demonstrates a lack of understanding of simple grammar, I've
generally found it unlikely that they are in any position to debate
issues involving complex moral reasoning.

I'm having a hard time seeing the correlation between what you call
complex moral reasoning and a person's understanding and knowledge of
grammar and spelling.

Also, if your points are valid they should be able stand on their
own
merits and not need any bolstering emotional component in the form of
statements made solely for the intention of belittling and demeaning
others.

The problem, BottleBob, is that regardless of the merit of my position,
my points are really "valid" only to the extent the other party in the
"discussion" is open-mined, morally and mentally competent, and
intellectually honest. A rare combination on usenet.

Opps, you misspelled open-minded, does that indicate that you're
morally incompetent? ...Just kidding.
So can we assume that you believe that those who don't agree with your
particular mindset fall into the class of individuals that could be
characterized as "close-minded", morally and mentally INcompetent, as
well as being intellectually DIShonest?

Unfortunately I don't have much time in the next few days for much
"discussion".

Well today's the last day of my weekend, and I don't have much time
during the week to post, so our little "chat" will probably come to a
screeching halt.

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob