Kavanaugh Confirmation

#11,503
#11,503
Matt2496 said:
I've heard the argument that Catherine Ford has nothing to gain by coming forward, which is why we should trust her.

This is so stupid! She's going to get book deals, TV interviews, and constant adoration from the left-wing media. She's gaining everything by coming forward!
Click to expand...
I think the last amount I saw in gofundme was around 3/4 mil...?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496
#11,506
#11,506
Orange_Crush said:
The debate is whether the ends ever justify the means, specifically defined as immoral actions (which can't justify themselves) being justified by their results. You were cut to the quick with the accusation that your ethics convict you, so you've been doing gator rolls, floundering to make everyone as guilty as yourself.

You agreed to the word and will of God as the objective standard of the ethics in question. You lost at that moment, and you've been little more than a headless chicken since then. Running around in circles, bleeding profusely, with no head, reason or direction. I'm doing little more than trying to keep you in the sink until you finally stop moving, merely in the effort to keep your noisy demise from messing up the entire kitchen.
Click to expand...
It was never specifically defined as immoral actions (which can't justify themselves) (no matter how many times you claim otherwise). What does the word and will of God say about bashing someone's head in with a brick?
If your interpretation of the word and will of god is approving any action that can be justified by its end result (bashing in a man's head with a brick), then you have your bases covered.
My contention all along was that many actions are interpreted as right or wrong specially according to the desired end result.
Bashing a man's head in with a brick could be wrong or right. It depends on the desired end result. That's a position that you have not once refuted.
 
#11,507
#11,507
Out of fairness, there is a Gofundme, maybe more than one taking money for Kavanaugh. Last time I saw it on twitter it was up to around 250k.
 
#11,509
#11,509
luthervol said:
It was never specifically defined as immoral actions (which can't justify themselves) (no matter how many times you claim otherwise). What does the word and will of God say about bashing someone's head in with a brick?
If your interpretation of the word and will of god is approving any action that can be justified by its end result (bashing in a man's head with a brick), then you have your bases covered.
My contention all along was that many actions are interpreted as right or wrong specially according to the desired end result.
Bashing a man's head in with a brick could be wrong or right. It depends on the desired end result. That's a position that you have not once refuted.
Click to expand...

I can't do it for you, Luther. Try to keep the bleeding to a minimum until you bleed out. The rest of us have to live with what you do to the kitchen.
 
#11,511
#11,511
SLICKYINC said:
Out of fairness, there is a Gofundme, maybe more than one taking money for Kavanaugh. Last time I saw it on twitter it was up to around 250k.
Click to expand...

There have been at least three for Ford. Two of them stopped taking donations at over $500 k each.
 
#11,514
#11,514
Orange_Crush said:
For precision, i will say that evil, immoral, means are never justified by their outcomes. This should be understood by definition, if the means have to be justified by anything but themselves, but i will be explicit.
Click to expand...

Since 9:27pm last night, the beginning of our discussion, Luther. This is the third time you've denied this was the context, and the second time I've reminded you today.
 
#11,515
#11,515
Matt2496 said:
I've heard the argument that Catherine Ford has nothing to gain by coming forward, which is why we should trust her.

This is so stupid! She's going to get book deals, TV interviews, and constant adoration from the left-wing media. She's gaining everything by coming forward!
Click to expand...
And $700,000
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496
#11,517
#11,517
Orange_Crush said:
The edit was a god edit. It simply quoted your lying post that claimed I hadn't answered, along with my detailed answer, and said "crickets". It was good because being right doesn't justify gloating.

I'll remind you of the debate: Whether inherently immoral acts are justified by the results of the acts. As described earlier, you lost when you accepted the Word and Will of God as the objective standard for the debate. Christian ethics will never justify an objectively immoral action by its result. Christian ethics do not work that way. However, Christian ethics can and will condemn otherwise morally neutral actions as immoral based on the motive behind them.

Thus, as mentioned, there is nothing objectively immoral about breaking someone's window. Much as there was nothing objectively immoral about damaging a neighbor's ox in the law. It was what it was. There was no moral penalty to be paid. There was only the matter of paying the owner what he lost. Similarly, there is nothing objectively immoral about breaking another's window, unless the motive behind it was to harm the owner of the window or benefit at their expense. Then the selfish/damaging motive attribute immorality to the act.

Luther's reason for bringing this up was to then claim that the end of...say...saving my kid from their home, would justify the immoral act of breaking their window. But that's the opposite of Christian ethics. It's a morally neutral act, dependent on intent, and I still may have to pay the owner of the window the value of the window after the fact, even with good motives.

Believe it or not, per the Word and Will of God, hitting someone in the head with a rock is morally neutral until Christian ethics considers the motive behind it. The OT law actually commanded people TO stone others under the law. Is the motive to hurt an innocent, or to condemn a criminal in God's name of justice? The motive (not the result, both are injured/dead) define the moral standing of the act.

Now, Luther either recognized the difference between this ethic, and his defended ethic of justifying objectively immoral actions (and that's why he wouldn't touch the actual post where I explained the difference), or as predicted he's not quite nimble of thought enough to recognize the difference. But it's a difference of direction. Can we justify objectively immoral actions because of their outcomes? And is it different to define something as immoral based on motives?

Now Luther, you seem to be trying to equivocate the debate to one of any means being justified by its end. But that's not the debate. The debate is whether an objectively immoral action can be justified by its outcome.

Let's see the difference...

I break your car window to save the baby you forgot was strapped in the back seat. Christian-ethics says that breaking your window is a morally neutral action, but an immoral motive can make the action immoral. Even so, ethics say that we will need to take care of the matter of your value lost.

Is it immoral to break your car window to do you harm? Yes. Is it immoral to break your car window to profit off of insurance fraud? Yes. Neither can be justified by their ends.

Is looking at a woman immoral? No. Does looking at a woman need to be justified? No.

Is looking at a woman to dwell on pornographic desires immoral? By Christian ethics, defined by God's Word, yes it is. And that end doesn't justify the immorality.

Is it immoral to spread vicious rumors about someone to destroy their character and name? By Christian ethics and the Word of God, yes it is. Does doing it to delay a confirmation hearing justify it? No. Never.

Is it immoral to cheat on your spouse? Yes. Is it justified if your spouse cheated first? No. It's an immoral act that isn't justified by compounding the immorality.

Those are no "twists". It's a clear, scripture-supported description of why Christian ethics differ from your "ends justify the means", and a highlight of how you are trying to use a misunderstanding to claim that there is no difference between the two.
Click to expand...
luthervol said:
I stopped reading there. That was never the debate.
From the beginning my question was "does the end ever justify the means?"
I never once said anything about inherently immoral acts...that's your projected twist onto the question.
Click to expand...

Here's the post you stopped reading. It's only ONE of about four where I specifically answered your "bash with a rock" question.

You apparently are LITERALLY closing your eyes, stopping your ears, humming at the top of your lungs, and claiming I can't answer.

Now... I bid you good day. You've earned my contempt and no more of my time.
 
#11,519
#11,519
volinbham said:
Could it be that people in the wedding party (groomsmen, bridesmaids) would also remember being at the wedding and when asked not say "never was at a wedding like that and I don't even know (bride or groom)?
Click to expand...

I can just picture EL grinning from ear to ear as he types his "gotcha" posts.
 
#11,520
#11,520
nuclearjunky said:
The only thing I see a problem with is that she said her THERAPY session was in 2012. I havent seen where she gave and actual date on the renovation. Not that she would remember that either though.......
Click to expand...
The permit shows that she added a bedroom, and bathroom also for a total of around $150k. There are several people that have registered their mail to the address. If you're so concerned about security in your home do you take on a boarder?
 
#11,523
#11,523
txbo said:
The permit shows that she added a bedroom, and bathroom also for a total of around $150k. There are several people that have registered their mail to the address. If you're so concerned about security in your home do you take on a boarder?
Click to expand...

I don't believe anything that comes out of her mouth other than she knows her name, I'm just saying she never said WHEN she did the renovation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol and txbo
#11,525
#11,525
Orange_Crush said:
I can't do it for you, Luther. Try to keep the bleeding to a minimum until you bleed out. The rest of us have to live with what you do to the kitchen.
Click to expand...
It feels more like a foot massage to me.

I would go as far as saying, in the event you found yourself in a position where the only possible way to stop a terrorist attack that would kill 100's was to willfully slander one of the terrorist, the ends would justify the means and God's will and word would be fully accepting.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top