[Sigi_BC84]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 08:28 PM, said:

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

You are sounding more and more deranged. Let me remind you that you jumped at somebody's throat because that person dared to post the sentence "The worst invention is religion". Now you ramble about free speech.

Let's talk about double moral standards again.

--Sigi

[keylime]

If you think I'm deranged, then why post? Just because I firmly believe in what I choose to believe in, doesn't mandate a stab at my mental state. That's an insult to my character, and the millions of people who like me deal with actual disorders on a daily basis. It's people like you why the stigma of mental illness is so prevalent in many societies. Nice, real nice.

Furthermore if you really think I have a double moral standard, read my posts again. I don't think consistency of view is an issue with me.

Scary how people can't handle a dissenting view.

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 10:28 PM, said:

Many fear the concept of exercising free speech, especially when religion and politics are espoused, because of the possible ramifications. I don't. The simple act of articulation, is superior to allowing someone else, to choose my beliefs.

Dwayne:

No one is trying to limit your right to speech.
No one is trying to dictate your belief system.

I am merely questioning whether it is necessary for individuals to trumpet their political / religious beliefs any chance they get. I don't think that political trolling has a place on this bulletin board. Furthermore, I think that a number of your posts fall within this category.

[keylime]

Richard,

And others aren't?

We may not agree often, but I still carry a high measure of respect for you, because you aren't shy about saying what's on your mind.

I, with as bad as my langauge is, am attempting to do the same.

[Sigi_BC84]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 09:01 PM, said:

If you think I'm deranged, then why post? Just because I firmly believe in what I choose to believe in, doesn't mandate a stab at my mental state. That's an insult to my character, and the millions of people who like me deal with actual disorders on a daily basis. It's people like you why the stigma of mental illness is so prevalent in many societies. Nice, real nice.

Look, all I've said is that you sound deranged. This was a comment targeted at your "policitical and religious trolling" (as quite nicely put by Richard) in combination with your apparent inability to deal with the fact that some people actually couldn't care less about God (or the US, or Bush, or ...).

Quote

Furthermore if you really think I have a double moral standard, read my posts again. I don't think consistency of view is an issue with me.

My remark was not about your policital/religious views expressed here but about the double moral standards that you (apparently) apply towards free speech. To put it bluntly: Dwayne may trumpet anything but don't you dare to touch one of his holy cows (no pun about holiness intended). My apologies if I'm wrong here, but this is the impression one gets when reading that posting of yours above.

Quote

Scary how people can't handle a dissenting view.

It is not your views but your way of expressing them that I find difficult to handle (in case you don't understand what I'm talking about here: you keep making highly controversial statements without backing them with any arguments, apparently for no other reason but aggravating the readers of this thread).

--Sigi

[joshs]

Well, I love you all. Now, I must be deranged!

I figure that I will not bring up the exciting discovery of the gospel of judas, and instead bring open for debate the proposition that:
"God is not a Red Sox fan".

This I am sure will provide a subject where we can find agreement between

a. athiests, who happen to be red sox fans, and
b. religious folks who dislike the red sox and
c. Followers of Spinoza who think god went into hybernation after creating the universe and
d. Anyone who thinks Barry Bonds taking steroids is a good thing

[mike777]

We in the know all realize God is a Cubs fan. We have objective proof of this.

Flying to game on Saturday, will try and bring back proof next week for all. .

Can we get Bill James to bring his stats over from the dark side(Boston) to the side of goodness and light?

[hrothgar]

keylime, on Apr 7 2006, 11:23 PM, said:

We may not agree often, but I still carry a high measure of respect for you, because you aren't shy about saying what's on your mind.

I, with as bad as my langauge is, am attempting to do the same.

To me there is a fundamental difference between bridge and politics/religion.

Bridge is a game. Its a silly little pastime. At the end of the day, none of it actually matters. I have no problem with people making forceful arguments about bridge because no one is really going to take things too seriously. At the end of the day, if I make a stupid bid or butcher yet another defense I'm going to feel a bit foolish but its not going to matter one bit.

On the other hand, politics and religion are something that I am deadily serious about.

I have walked away from a lucrative consulting deal because of the owner's political affiliation. I refuse to spend money with Walmart and Exxon because of the corporate policies. Its been many a year since I've ordered a pizza from Dominos. I transferred a lot of assets out of Bank of America as a result of some rather lopsided political contributions.

Don't get me wrong. I LIKE to argue politics. I have some very strongly held opinions here and many of them are quite controversial. However, in my experience political debates often get emotional. Soon after they get really REALLY ugly.

[luke warm]

[quote name='pbleighton' date='Apr 7 2006, 07:35 AM']"my point is, if morality is subjective, then you cannot say that your morality is any more "right" than theirs... if you can say that, how? it has nothing to do with the act, it concerns your use of the word 'immoral' regarding that act"

My point is, can you?[/quote]
i don't have to.. as i said on two separate occasions (now 3), "no, my position has (had) nothing to do with morality... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light "

as you can see yet again, i don't think morality has any place in a political discussion, though i absolutely agree with your right to introduce it... however, if you do introduce it (and you did), you can't then call on me to defend something i never stated or implied... i simply objected to your use of the word and attempted to find out how you could state it as a fact when your words paint a different picture

[quote]You are the one who introduced "objective" versus "subjective" morality, a straw man IMO, but obviously important to you. [/quote]
say huh? do you know what a straw man argument is? i simply asked you a question, which you answered... i never introduced anything of the kind

[quote]Is your morality "objective" or "subjective", in your opinion?  I answered your direct question on this, haveing no problem with my position.  Why are you so reluctant to answer mine?[/quote]
because (as i now state for the 4th time), " ... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

i did not introduce morality and refuse to defend whatever position you wish to give me simply because you wish to give it... i will defend statements i make, but not statements you want me to make

[quote name='han']Hmm, I've got to reread all your posts then. I thought that this was more or less your message: Without a god, there is no way distinguish good and bad, there is no moral difference between a murderer and, say, me.[/quote]
no, that wasn't my message at all (although i can probably make a good case for it)... i had no message, peter did... i objected to his use of the word, that's all...

[quote]I'm not a religious person, nor do I have a strong background in philosophy. Perhaps that makes it impossible for me to understand your posts. [/quote]
i don't know many people more intelligent than you, so background or not i doubt you'd have too much trouble with understanding... in a nutshell, here it is:

in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof

in an attempt to find out why he thought those acts were immoral, i simply asked upon what he based his views... i asked if he viewed morality as objective or subjective... he stated "subjective"... so naturally it occurred to me (as it will to you) that if morality is indeed subjective, his statement that a thing (any thing) is immoral carries no more weight that the one who states that the same thing is moral.. in an attempt to stem the tide, he tried to get me to defend "objective morality"... i refuse to defend something i never affirmed... he introduced a straw man into the discussion

[quote name='helene']1: "It can be mathematically proven that ....."
Does not qualify. But hen again, it never could. Moral judgement is beyond the scopes of mathematics.[/quote]
i agree

[quote]2: "According to objective moral, ...."
Objective moral does not exist, of course. It occurs to me that you and Peter accuse each other for believing in objective moral, while everybody agress it does not exist.[/quote]
well to state "objective moral[ity] does not exist, of course..." simply begs the question... i haven't accused peter of anything, i haven't had to... he quite plainly stated that "morality is subjective" ... he has tried to accuse me of stating the converse, but i never did so

[quote]3: "I'm stronger than you so you'd better agree that ...... since otherwise I'd beat you up"
You said (if I understood you correctly) that the only alternative to objective moral is "might makes right", so this seems to be the only frame of reference that remains after we have agreed to trash the objective moral. But as I've said a couple of times, I disagree. I believe that there are more useful alternatives to objective moral than this one.[/quote]
we didn't exactly agree to trash objective morality ... the 'might makes right' argument goes something like this... in a world of subjective morality, the jew thinks it is immoral to gas their race by the millions, while the nazi disagrees... the nazis won that debate by force of arms, thus the morality inherent in their worldview prevailed... other countries, also thinking the gassing of the jews was immoral, put a stop to it... their opinion of morality was upheld by force of arms... BUT, both the gassing and its cessation were moral in any worldview that states morality is subjective...

[quote]4: "It is Jimmy's opinion that ......"
Much better. Statements made within this frame of reference are useful to those who know you and to those who want to know you better. Besides, since you believe that rape and torture is immoral (I presume), it actually qualifies.[/quote]
i agree, that's *much* better... however, note that in a world of subjective morality, my morality is still only an "opinion"

[quote]5: "According to the vast majority of contemporary Western philosofers, ....."
That's would probably be the most useful frame of reference for a forum like this one. And as for rape and torture, it happens to qualify, I think. [/quote]
yes, that could qualify... but that's basically the 'might makes right' argument in a context where philosophical thought has replaced bullets (imo)

[quote name='richard']However, in my experience political debates often get emotional.[/quote]
yes they do, and often they get every bit as emotional as religious debates (with the same zeal that's often found in the latter) ... a debate, to be worthy of the word, must follow certain well-established rules of engagement... emotionalism is not one of those rules

[joshs]

"...yes, but objectivity is subjective..." - from Love and Death, Woody Allen

[pbleighton]

"a debate, to be worthy of the word, must follow certain well-established rules of engagement... emotionalism is not one of those rules"

Whe you introduced the concept of "objective morality" (you did this, not me) into the discussion, and then refused to discuss where you stand on it, then you have violated a well-established rule of engagement, which is:

Don't be a chicken in a debate

"An immoral bunch we non-believers are, we can't even decide whether rape and torture are good or bad. Pray for me Jimmy."

Very nice, Hannie

I think I have figured out what happened to Jimmy's posts in this thread. He found himself in a minority, taking offense at statements made by the majority, particularly my posts (possibly because I am a U.S. citizen, and should not criticize my country in front of foreigners). He can't really engage on the merits of the morality of U.S. foreign policy, because, as he has admitted, he agrees with at least some of the criticism. His patriotism and his morality are in conflict. He has focused on my lack of "objective morality", in order to disqualify my judgment that certain acts of U.S. foreign policy are immoral, a judgment not so incidentally shared by a large majority of the world's population. This argument makes no sense whatsoever to any of the other posters in this thread (as far as I can tell), but he clings to it. It does seem like something you'd expect from a bright teenager who has discovered how to use intellectual-sounding arguments to irritate adults, which is weird because Jimmy is even older than I am, and his posts on bridge are usually pretty good, but no matter. He doesn't really want his argument examined too closely, however, so he refuses to say whether he thinks there is such a thing as "objective morality", and claims victory instead.

To use a bridge analogy...

He is defending 3NT, holding as his last card the two of spades. The declarer is on lead, having taken eight tricks, and leads the ace of clubs. Jimmy plunks down the two of spades and says.....

"You forgot to draw trump!"

Peter

[csdenmark]

A bit help here to those asking for documentation of human right abuses committed by others than USA.



This is about revealings of norwegians forcing german surrenders to clear mines in 1945.

This a a link to Verdens Gang, the biggest norwegian newspaper. Norwegian language only

[csdenmark]

Maybe soon time for all to realize USA will be heading for new troubles:



THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Issue of 2006-04-17
Posted 2006-04-10

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 7 2006, 09:35 PM, said:

When you introduced the concept of "objective morality" (you did this, not me) into the discussion

you can keep repeating that as often as you like, but anyone who has followed our posts can easily see your error... the first time morality was mentioned, Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, you said these two things:

" ... it is wrong to topple foreign governments ... " and "It is morally wrong."

you introduced something into the debate, and i had the right to ask for clarification, which i did by asking the nature of this morality to which you referred... you clarified by stating that your morality is subjective...

it's exactly the same thing as if i'd said something like "it's obvious God exists" and you sought clarification by asking "to which God do you refer, the christian God or some other god?"... if i answered "the christian God," i could not then accuse you of introducing "some other god" into the discussion... an honest reading of the posts by anyone will show the truth here

Quote

and then refused to discuss where you stand on it, then you have violated a well-established rule of engagement, which is:

Don't be a chicken in a debate 

i did state where i stood on it, peter... as above, anyone who wishes to be truthful about this will note that i said, here for the 5th time, " ... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

so you asked where i stood on the subject and i said morality has no place in a political debate, in my opinion... therefore, i will not argue either side from a moral standpoint... you are free to do so, but not without being challenged on your statements... to attempt to make me defend a concept i have disaffirmed is dishonest

Quote

I think I have figured out what happened to Jimmy's posts in this thread.  He found himself in a minority, taking offense at statements made by the majority, particularly my posts (possibly because I am a U.S. citizen, and should not criticize my country in front of foreigners).

being in the minority doesn't bother me... my arguments were all reasoned and without emotion... you assert your opinions as fact (that i was "..taking offense..", for example) and expect not to be challenged on them... i took no offense, i merely objected to statements you'd made...

to show that your parenthetical remark above is exactly opposite of what was said, thus how it doesn't comport with the facts, on Apr 1 2006, 09:09 AM i said "i'll abide legitimate criticism... i'll even level criticism at this gov't, on occasion... i personally wish we weren't in iraq at this moment, for example.. there are a lot of policies implemented by both the president and the congress with which i disagree.."

anyone who cares to look can see that several of your statements do not comport well at all with the words i have used

Quote

He can't really engage on the merits of the morality of U.S. foreign policy, because, as he has admitted, he agrees with at least some of the criticism.

you have made and continue to make elementary mistakes in your tactics... first, i can't engage on the merits of the morality of the us because i don't happen to believe that morality and government can be used in the same context... and yes, i do agree with some of the things america has done, things you disagree with... so what? i don't agree and i don't disagree on moral grounds (though i could)... you do, therefore you bear that burden

Quote

He has focused on my lack of "objective morality", in order to disqualify my judgment that certain acts of U.S. foreign policy are immoral, a judgment not so incidentally shared by a large majority of the world's population. 

might makes right? in any case, i have focused on your statement that morality is subjective in order to ascertain why you think your opinions (or morality) is better than anybody else's.. if one makes a moral argument one has to be prepared to defend it.. to say "everybody agrees with me," whether true or not, is not a defense

Quote

It does seem like something you'd expect from a bright teenager who has discovered how to use intellectual-sounding arguments to irritate adults, which is weird because Jimmy is even older than I am, and his posts on bridge are usually pretty good, but no matter.

this is simply insulting, and i'll not to stoop to that level.. i have not said anything of a personal nature to or about you... it does nothing to bolster your position, and probably has the opposite effect with others

Quote

He doesn't really want his argument examined too closely, however, so he refuses to say whether he thinks there is such a thing as "objective morality", and claims victory instead.

actually i'd love for others, whether philosophically aligned with you or me, to examine both our posts to see the logic contained... i do think some haven't commented because they don't wish to be seen as defending american policies with which they disagree, even though that discussion seems to be a thing of the past... as for defending 'objective morality', i have to ask again - why must i defend a position i never took simply because you seem incapable of defending one you did take? as i said below, i did not introduce morality and refuse to defend whatever position you wish to give me simply because you wish to give it... i will defend statements i make, but not statements you want me to make

which of these do you disagree with?

in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof

josh said:

"...yes, but objectivity is subjective..." - from Love and Death, Woody Allen

lol

[luke warm]

csdenmark, on Apr 8 2006, 09:19 AM, said:

Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?

would denmark? probably not, but those in power there, and in most civilized countries, would probably breathe a sigh of relief if someone prevented iran from going nuclear, while at the same time criticizing whoever did so

[csdenmark]

I know quite well Jimmy it is very difficult for an american president not to go to war. If american soliders are not needed for armed combats then for what are they needed? NOTHING is the answer - and american presidents knows that, therefore they go to war.

USA is the only country I think which haven't received the peace dividend coming from end of the cold war. Why? All knows the answer - then they will need to deal with domestic issues - very uncomfortable of course.

[pbleighton]

1. "in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof"

I stated that very few moral or political arguments were provable by either side. Do you disagree?

2. You said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality" (Apr 3 2006, 10:39 AM)

It was in response to this that I said that I believed that morality was subjective (Apr 3 2006, 11:53 PM).

This was the timing. You can look it up.

You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me. I stated a moral judgment, which billions of people do every day. This is not the same as getting into the nature of morality, which you did by asking my position, then refusing to reveal your own.

3. You also said, without any stated basis, that morality has no place in political discussions. This is a very unusual view (I know no one, of any political persuasion, who would agree with it). I asked:
"Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?

Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage..."

You never replied to this. You have been basing your refusal to engage on the nature of morality, a subject you brought up, on:
1) I brought up the concept of subjective vs objective morality. Patently false, see above, and
2) Morality has no place in political discussions. Strange, stated with no basis. Can you at least give an argument in favor of a position so totally at odds with common practice? This is what I meant by the teenager analogy (which I qualified as being weird, and not like your typical posts). I feel that it is incredibly naive for a normally thoughtful adult such as yourself to attempt to dissociate political issues from morality.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 8 2006, 11:46 AM, said:

1. "in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof"

i asked you which of those you disagreed with.. you didn't answer... i will gladly defend any positive affirmation i make, or will just as gladly admit i erred... show me the affirmation as i've shown you yours

Quote

2. You said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality" (Apr 3 2006, 10:39 AM)

It was in response to this that I said that I believed that morality was subjective (Apr 3 2006, 11:53 PM). This was the timing. You can look it up.

i did look it up... my last post gave the timeline... you keep saying that 'objective morality' is a stance i took... i never once stated i did... as a matter of fact, as i've said over and over and as you have never denied, you introduced morality for the first time on Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, which is prior to your example above ... i would never have used morality as a basis for my argument unless i was prepared to defend it

then on Apr 2 2006, 03:56 PM, in direct response to you, i asked "are you saying that there is some way to measure morality? is this the 'peter morality' we're speaking of, or is there some more objective type?" ... i again asked, on Apr 2 2006, 05:44 PM, "all i asked was, whose morality are you using to measure this against?"

that is a perfectly legitimate question to ask of a person who asserts that something is true (iow, a positive affirmation) ... i am entitled clarification of an affirmative statement, and i sought it...

Quote

You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me. I stated a moral judgment, which billions of people do every day.  This is not the same as getting into the nature of morality, which you did by asking my position, then refusing to reveal your own.

you keep repeating the same inaccurate statement... i answered this last post, here it is again if you missed it:

you can keep repeating that as often as you like, but anyone who has followed our posts can easily see your error... the first time morality was mentioned, Apr 2 2006, 01:53 PM, you said these two things:

" ... it is wrong to topple foreign governments ... " and "It is morally wrong."

you introduced something into the debate, and i had the right to ask for clarification, which i did by asking the nature of this morality to which you referred... you clarified by stating that your morality is subjective...

it's exactly the same thing as if i'd said something like "it's obvious God exists" and you sought clarification by asking "to which God do you refer, the christian God or some other god?"... if i answered "the christian God," i could not then accuse you of introducing "some other god" into the discussion... an honest reading of the posts by anyone will show the truth here

Quote

3. You also said, without any stated basis, that morality has no place in political discussions.

no i did not... for the 6th time now, this is what i said on this point: " ... you introduced that concept into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

as you can see (if you read the 6 times it's been posted), i did NOT state what you accuse me of stating, and it's dishonest to keep saying i did... show me where... saying "morality is subjective" is an example of making a statement.. saying "... i'm not sure... " is not

Quote

"Except for a horse-race, who is going to win the election conversation, how can anyone have a meaningful political discussion which is devoid of a significant moral dimension?

Welfare, abortion, capital punishment, the minimum wage, gay marriage..."

You never replied to this.

i replied 32 minutes later and said, "whether or not that's true, i'd still be interested in knowing upon what you base this ethereal concept of 'morality'..."

i can argue the points you raise without recourse to morality... however, if i did use morality in my argument i would be able to defend its use... you will not be allowed to make mere assertions in a debate with no challenge to those assertions

Quote

You have been basing your refusal to engage on the nature of morality

the nature of morality? since when did this turn into a debate on the nature of morality? ... you call something immoral and then get upset when i won't say what you want me to say, or you accuse me of saying that which i never said... when your arguments are fallacious, when you use ad hominem attacks, when you introduce straw men into a debate, you will be called on it...

Quote

a subject you brought up, on:
1) I brought up the concept of subjective vs objective morality.

show me where i said that, or retract it... you brought up the concept of morality, period... the earliest words on the subject were your words, not mine... you cannot force me to make an argument i refuse to make

Quote

2) Morality has no place in political discussions.  Strange, stated with no basis.  Can you at least give an argument in favor of a position so totally at odds with common practice?

you continue to use straw men... show me where i stated the above as a fact... i said i was not *sure* such a thing was possible, not that it wasn't... a little more (no pun intended) objectivity is needed when you accuse me of making assertions i never made

it's seems foolish to say a person said a thing when the words to disprove the accusation are there for all to see

[pbleighton]

1. "you keep saying that 'objective morality' is a stance i took"

No, this is what I said:

"You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me."

As my quote of yours demonstrated.

2. "i am entitled clarification of an affirmative statement, and i sought it... "

Yes, you did so, and I have no problem with that. You did so, however, by bringing up the concept of "objective morality". I have no problem with that, either. I'm just baffled by your refusal to acknowledge what you did.

3. "the nature of morality? since when did this turn into a debate on the nature of morality?"

Since you said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality"

and

"let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist"

and

"... one has to either admit that morality is subjective (aceofheart's canabal example) or state why it is objective... if subjective, it's reduced to the level of opinion, and should be stated as such... you notice that peter did not attempt to define morality, or explain why one act is moral while another is immoral.. "

Sure sounds to me like you were discussing the nature of morality to me.

4. " show me where i stated the above as a fact... i said i was not *sure* such a thing was possible, not that it wasn't"

You said:

"you introduced that concept [morality] into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

"That's an entirely different conversation"?

No it's not, unless you believe that morality has no place in political discussions.

5. From your first post in this thread:

"all the bash america posts make me sad... the last stats i have (ca 2003) show that the u.s. gave an estimated $241 billion in charity to the rest of the world, which equals about 2.3 percent of u.s. gross domestic product.... check out how much other 'developed' countries give, as a % of gdp... anybody close?"

While not using the word "morality", this is clearly a defense of the U.S. on moral grounds. You are defending the U.S. by talking about charitable contributions. This preceded my "It is morally wrong." post.

So who introduced morality into the discussion? Well, the people who wrote the posts you reacted to, perhaps, but you were in there, too. After the initial conspiracy stuff, this thread has been mostly about the justifiability (moral or otherwise) of U.S. foreign policy, present and past.

And you were part of it, until you decided to parse a simple statement of moral judgment to death.

Peter

[luke warm]

pbleighton, on Apr 8 2006, 03:42 PM, said:

1. "you keep saying that 'objective morality' is a stance i took"

No, this is what I said:

"You introduced the concept of "objective morality" into the discussion, not me."

As my quote of yours demonstrated.

what you posted was a quote in which i said "i think," which means it's an opinion.. you clarified the issue when you confirmed that what i thought to be true was true..

Quote

2. "i am entitled clarification of an affirmative statement, and i sought it... "

Yes, you did so, and I have no problem with that.  You did so, however, by bringing up the concept of "objective morality".  I have no problem with that, either. I'm just baffled by your refusal to acknowledge what you did.

because morality, objective or otherwise, was not a part of my argument... it was a part of yours, and i want(ed) to know why...

Quote

3. "the nature of morality? since when did this turn into a debate on the nature of morality?"

Since you said "i could be wrong, but i think you don't really believe there's such a thing as morality... not a real, objective morality"

and

"let's see... if there's no such thing as a "real, objective morality," then by your definition ("no such thing") it can't exist"

and

"... one has to either admit that morality is subjective (aceofheart's canabal example) or state why it is objective... if subjective, it's reduced to the level of opinion, and should be stated as such... you notice that peter did not attempt to define morality, or explain why one act is moral while another is immoral.. " Sure sounds to me like you were discussing the nature of morality to me.

i've said countless times that i wasn't discussing morality, i was discussing your use of it as an argument... you said objective morality doesn't exist.. fine... however, my contention is that if that's the case, you cannot make an argument based on morality... why? because your morality is simply an opinion stated as a fact... a mere assertion... when you say something is immoral (not as an opinion, but as a fact), you have to defend it...

Quote

4. " show me where i stated the above as a fact... i said i was not *sure* such a thing was possible, not that it wasn't"

You said:

"you introduced that concept [morality] into the discussion... that's an entirely different conversation, and i'm not sure anything of a political nature can be discussed in that light"

"That's an entirely different conversation"?

No it's not, unless you believe that morality has no place in political discussions.

as i stated, and as you quoted me as stating, i'm not sure morality has such a place... i've said so numerous times...

Quote

5.  From your first post in this thread:

"all the bash america posts make me sad... the last stats i have (ca 2003) show that the u.s. gave an estimated $241 billion in charity to the rest of the world, which equals about 2.3 percent of u.s. gross domestic product.... check out how much other 'developed' countries give, as a % of gdp... anybody close?"

While not using the word "morality", this is clearly a defense of the U.S. on moral grounds.  You are defending the U.S. by talking about charitable contributions.  This preceded my "It is morally wrong." post.

that isn't the first time you've used the same fallacious tactic... the giving of money to charities may or may not be moral, but i never said it was nor even hinted at it... i simply stated it as a fact... you are free to draw inferences from things people say, by you aren't free to put words in their mouths or thoughts in their heads... you can't keep insisting something is "clear" to you when the person who uttered the words tells you flat out that you are wrong

Quote

So who introduced morality into the discussion? Well, the people who wrote the posts you reacted to, perhaps, but you were in there, too.  After the initial conspiracy stuff, this thread has been mostly about the justifiability (moral or otherwise) of U.S. foreign policy, present and past.

And you were part of it, until you decided to parse a simple statement of moral judgment to death.

i was only a part of it in your mind... even though i never made a moral argument, you assumed i did... i am not responsible for the error of your assumptions...

you are free to make all the moral judgments you want... but in a debate, when you positively affirm a position you have to be able to defend it... i positively affirmed no position viz morality, i only asked questions to clarify yours...

for the 3rd time i'll ask: which of these 3 do you disagree with?

in a debate, the person who makes a positive affirmation bears the burden of proof;
peter positively affirmed that certain acts of the us gov't were immoral;
peter bears the burden of proof