Vincent Vega Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 And it certainly is not an efficient vehicle for effecting real change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1352781957' post='2508994'] Unfortunately, and as these past couple of elections have proven, orthodox Catholicism has a very small voice in the modern US political arena. [/quote] So let me get this straight. So long as a majority seems to approve of a policy that attacks the Church and other liberties of free individuals it is not extreme? How is that not relativism? If a majority approves the mass murder of a group of unwanted people that would not be extreme but the new normal, moderate or centrist? [Quote] Rejecting reality does not cause it to cease being real. [/quote] I did not say that the reality of the existence of the mandate be rejected. But if Catholics should comply or not comply with the long. If they do not comply that is a rejection of the mandate. Edited November 13, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352781260' post='2508981'] Should Catholics accept the mandate as the new normal USAirways? How do they make strong arguments against the mandate if it is not clearly a extreme attack upon their rights? [/quote] By using the normal rules of morality that apply to everyone else on this planet. I cannot force you to buy USairwayihs's finger paintings, and a bunch of people with fancy titles cannot force us to purchase goods, either. One needn't use words like "extreme". Something doesn't become okay because it becomes normal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352824675' post='2509200'] By using the normal rules of morality that apply to everyone else on this planet. I cannot force you to buy USairwayihs's finger paintings, and a bunch of people with fancy titles cannot force us to purchase goods, either. One needn't use words like "extreme". Something doesn't become okay because it becomes normal. [/quote] I disagree. Something extreme doesn't cease to be extreme just because it is 'normal'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352824940' post='2509201'] I disagree. Something extreme doesn't cease to be extreme just because it is 'normal'. [/quote] Your emotions are hampering your reading comprehension. You're imagining things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352825176' post='2509203'] Your emotions are hampering your reading comprehension. You're imagining things. [/quote] I am not capable of emotions I am an android. I disagree that one need not use the term extreme to describe something when it is in fact extreme. Edited November 13, 2012 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352825703' post='2509205'] I am not capable of emotions I am an android. I disagree that one need not use the term extreme to describe something when it is in fact extreme. [/quote] You weren't talking about describing it, but attacking it. Either way, it's not necessary to use the word, which is really empty of meaning. "It's extreme" is overused and stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1352826172' post='2509210'] You weren't talking about describing it, but attacking it. Either way, it's not necessary to use the word, which is really empty of meaning. "It's extreme" is overused and stupid. [/quote] I still don't agree. The mandate is extreme or radical, I'm not seeing the problem with using those words and similar ones to describe the mandate. Seems kinda of stupid not to call something extreme when it is extreme, or radical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352824102' post='2509196'] So let me get this straight. So long as a majority seems to approve of a policy that attacks the Church and other liberties of free individuals it is not extreme? How is that not relativism? If a majority approves the mass murder of a group of unwanted people that would not be extreme but the new normal, moderate or centrist? [/quote] It isn't relativism, but it absolutely is relative. At one point in Western history, it would have been "normal" for persons to be prosecuted under the law for being witches. This would be considered "extreme" today. Its formal normalcy did not justify its happening. See the link I posted 15 or so posts ago for an actual alignment of Obama's policies and views. Until then, I'm satisfied with this as a quitting point for our discussion of terms apparently bereft of meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1352826878' post='2509222'] It isn't relativism, but it absolutely is relative. At one point in Western history, it would have been "normal" for persons to be prosecuted under the law for being witches. This would be considered "extreme" today. Its formal normalcy did not justify its happening. See the link I posted 15 or so posts ago for an actual alignment of Obama's policies and views. Until then, I'm satisfied with this as a quitting point for our discussion of terms apparently bereft of meaning. [/quote] Nope relativism. Burning witches was extreme, radical and wrong then as it is now. Just because the radicals and the extremist are in the majority it doesn't make them non-radicals and non-extremist. Basing what is 'normal' on majority opinion is relativism. You should instead be basing what is normal on the Natural Law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Vega Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 Right and normal/wrong and extreme are not synonyms. The lifestyle that, for instance, Trappist monks live in is most certainly extreme. [spoiler][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]going to great or exaggerated lengths [/size][/font][/color][b]:[/b][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] [/size][/font][/color][url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical"]radical[/url][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]<went on an [i]extreme[/i] diet>;[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]<[i]extreme[/i]weather conditions>[/size][/font][/color][/spoiler] Does that make it wrong or contrary to Natural Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1352764269' post='2508780'] http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012 [/quote] Bias alert for your source: http://politics.beasts.org/rationale.shtml And http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Political_Compass Even with their questionable credibility Political Compass places him in the authoritarian grouping. A authoritarian would be an extremist or radical in a society that is suppose to be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='USAirwaysIHS' timestamp='1352827999' post='2509236'] Right and normal/wrong and extreme are not synonyms. The lifestyle that, for instance, Trappist monks live in is most certainly extreme. [spoiler][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]going to great or exaggerated lengths [/size][/font][/color][b]:[/b][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] [/size][/font][/color][url="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radical"]radical[/url][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3] [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]<went on an [i]extreme[/i] diet>;[/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]exceeding the ordinary, usual, or expected [/size][/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3]<[i]extreme[/i]weather conditions>[/size][/font][/color][/spoiler] Does that make it wrong or contrary to Natural Law? [/quote] I would agree that would be radical and extreme. But a good form. Obama's radicalism and extremism is wicked and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352826626' post='2509219'] I still don't agree. The mandate is extreme or radical, I'm not seeing the problem with using those words and similar ones to describe the mandate. Seems kinda of stupid not to call something extreme when it is extreme, or radical. [/quote] You asked a 'how' question. I answered it. [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352781260' post='2508981'] Should Catholics accept the mandate as the new normal USAirways? How do they make strong arguments against the mandate if it is not clearly a extreme attack upon their rights? [/quote] Apart from that, ignoring the attack on rights, the Constitutional argument is quite sound and quite strong. I know the Feds no longer care about the rule of law (unless they're using it against citizens or against the policies of the opposing party), but that is a strong argument. In fact, using these human rights based arguments against unconstitutional actions by the Feds is really a poor tactic. If something is unconstitutional, it doesn't matter if it's an attack on human rights, or not: Any power not given to the Feds is reserved to the states or the people. It's about time to start using the Tenth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted November 13, 2012 Share Posted November 13, 2012 [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1352828970' post='2509246'] Even with their questionable credibility Political Compass places him in the authoritarian grouping. A authoritarian would be an extremist or radical in a society that is suppose to be free. [/quote] Oh. Ok. So my political views are mainstream since we are a society based on freedom and I am firmly on the 'libertarian' side of the authoritarian/libertarian spectrum. http://www.politicalcompass.org/test I was at: [b] Economic Left/Right: -9.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.56[/b] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now