11

Joe Sacco Response To Jihadist Attacks On Satirists

Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
82 comments | Share | Flag

hey, Euda, can we interview you on this-after all, you are a satirist: http://www.papapossum.com/
I would really appreciate your thoughts on killings and how we move forward in the World under this type of terrorism

All Comments

  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years, 1 month ago in reply to this comment.
    Publish lots more outrageous cartoons like CH did -- making fun of *all* beliefs including ours. See who responds with violence or threats. Smack them down.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How do you get to faith from a discussion of integrity? My comments to jim were based on integrity, not faith.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    if we are discussing objectivity, we are discussing reality. value systems come after. You don't want to acknowledge objectivity. you like things loosey goosey so they "need" faith to set them straight. no, a concept accepted, should be rooted in objectivity. everything about your faith asks the adherent to ignore that-in faith.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    yes. this is a salient point. I do not mean to demean (ok that's funny to put those two words together in a sentence) taking of oaths. I do want them rooted in reality. after all, I probably made 10 blood oaths before 12 years of age. I always kept my oath. then life meh
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You were not advocating reality, rather a value system. Not the same thing, and beneath your usual level of discussion/argument.

    I'm sure that you were monitoring the exchange between LS and myself. Where was I wrong?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Besides, the AFA Honor Code is: We will not lie, steal, or cheat, nor tolerate among us anyone who does. How an individual rectifies the oath that ends with "so help me God," is up to them. For me, it's immaterial, as oaths are mere words, it is the actions that matter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago
    I agree about lying. Doing is something else. Be reasonable. You and I both know that WP's honor code is reasonable. Point 2 I think is in play here. NOw if you are Air Force Academy cadet, I think their last point probably have a fair amount of rule breakers. what if You are not sure about God? you have no business in the academy? why? to what purpose? to what deficit?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You don't get to impart your concepts on them any more than they get to impart theirs on you without your consent/agreement. The origin of this discussion is that there was said agreement - which clearly was fraudulent. I say that speaks to the character of the individual.

    You can disagree with those criterion if you choose to, and to that I have no disagreement. However, when you outwardly voice agreement and inwardly refute such agreement, that is hypocritical.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • khalling replied 10 years, 3 months ago
    • khalling replied 10 years, 3 months ago
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Based on whose criteria? Perhaps not yours, but evidently theirs. You don't get to make that decision for them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Integrity has to be based in reality. Did BYU show integrity with their honor code? or were they suckering people in with a false premise. I don't want to really argue this-but I would point to over-bearing and obnoxious. you are not a better person for not drinking or having sex. it's irrational
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    if this was a contract, one could sue for breach? but what was the damage?
    You also have the problem of consideration. Jim paid for his education. and they came back and said you get this plus these extra rules-none of which had any bearing on performing to the contract. A big question might be what you do on campus reflects on us. what you are doing off campus reflects on you. He was not representing Mormons. That said, you have a valid argument here.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Robbie, if you are castigating me for my decisions, go for it. Won't change a thing.

    If you are just feeding me shit..... nice try....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hmmm, where I went to school, when one made an oath not to "lie, cheat, steal nor tolerate those who do," we didn't have a perspective of "those are their rules, I have mine." It was expected that if you couldn't live by those standards, then you shouldn't be there.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    As one of my Mormon co-grad students said as we had a beer, "They have their rules, I have mine."

    And I might mention, it was a great educational experience (except for them trying to get me married off to a Mormon woman --or two) LOL....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 10 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    minus 1. Objectivists would not advocate wiping an entire group of people out. There are billions of Muslims. A small minority are are terrorists. A great majority hold an immoral belief system. It will be ideas that change and reform how people think.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo