Thread: Sarah Palin?

Originally Posted by Birchtree

Race and propaganda are more likely to determine the outcome of the November election than any awareness or consideration of real issues by voters.

Birch, well said! And, it's too bad. We've got a lot of problems that need fixing and a lot of challenges to face.----Jim

Originally Posted by SkyPilot

I will be happy to respond further, but we have gone into another discussion and I will accomodate you off line by PM.

Don't bother. I don't think either of us are going to change the other's mind.

However, if I discover St. Thomas Aquinas' position on abortion, I'll let you know.---Jim

Originally Posted by rokid

Don't bother. I don't think either of us are going to change the other's mind.

However, if I discover St. Thomas Aquinas' position on abortion, I'll let you know.---Jim

I didn't think so...

Here, references are easy to find.

http://www2.franciscan.edu/plee/aqui...ensoulment.htm

It is not my mind that you are in contention with, it is with the doctrine and dogma of Catholic theology that you are in tension.

Originally Posted by SkyPilot

So, you equate the treatment our POWs received at the Hanoi Hilton with the incarceration of terrorists at Guantanamo?

Actually, I thought Steward's joke was funny. In addition, as Tom pointed out, it's probably true.

However, since you asked:

We're using "Hanoi Hilton" techniques on the people we're holding at Guantanamo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib, etc. Of course, we call them "enhanced interrogation". And, it's OK, because they're terrorists.

How do you know the Guantanamo prisoners are terrorists? Because, the Bush Administration says they are, right?

I admired John McCain because he opposed our use of torture. However, where does he stand now on the issue? It was clear from Sarah Palin speech that she's not an advocate of constitutional due process. Read'um their rights? Not Sarah Barrcudda. Just label them terrorists and throw away the key.

The North Vietnamese claimed our pilots were terrorists because they dropped bombs on Hanoi and hit civilian targets. And, since they were terrorists, according to our own logic, they could be tortured.----Jim

Originally Posted by SkyPilot

It is not my mind that you are in contention with, it is with the doctrine and dogma of Catholic theology that you are in tension.

Hey, no problem. I graduated from a Jesuit university. However, I no longer believe in Catholic dogma and theology. No tension at all.

However, as a result of your response, I did some Googling. Apparently, the Catholic Church is not of one opinion on abortion. I found a rather lively debate.

'Donceel notes that Thomas Aquinas "spoke of six weeks for the male embryo and three months for the female embryo." In Aquinas’s hylomorphic theory, the matter had to be ready to receive the appropriate form. According to such principles, as Rosemary Ruether points out, "Thomas Aquinas might well have had to place the point of human ensoulment in the last trimester if he had been acquainted with modern embryology."' I also found arguments on the opposite side.

http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1677

I'm glad to see the Church is still struggling with the issue. The Church's intellectual tradition, particularly among the Jesuits, "the soldiers of Christ",has always been a strong point.

Originally Posted by rokid

Actually, I thought Steward's joke was funny. In addition, as Tom pointed out, it's probably true.

Tom was being facetious, at least I hope. And yes, you and I disagree regarding the humor in such a comparison. I don't feel that torture is a subject fit for amusement.

Bet then, you would say that John McCain is a terrorist and deserved his confinement as a POW?

Would you also say that our men and women in uniform are terrorists and deserve to serve in a confinement camp?

If not, how would you draw a distinction of military action?

I notice you are also opposed to actions of law enforcement as you have noted here.

I am beginning to wonder how it is can work for such a corrupt government and take a salary. Doesn't this pose for you an ethical dilema?

As far as Palin's comments, this is not a new or resolved issue. Fair to say that she expresses some of the frustration many feel when we have Bin Laden in our sights and have to get legal approval to prosecute an attack, which allowes him to go free.

Maybe you are a pacifist, which is noble and honorable. Except that pacifist only can exist if someone else will fight to defend them against aggression.

Originally Posted by SkyPilot

Maybe you are a pacifist, which is noble and honorable. Except that pacifist only can exist if someone else will fight to defend them against aggression.

No, just a Vietnam vet. I got drafted in 1969, did my two years, and earned the right to express my opinion. If you don't like it, too f**king bad.

Frankly, I thought we were having a civil and interesting discussion. However, I'm not interested in exchanging ad hominem attacks. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion has ended.----Jim

Rokid,

So you know what I'm talking about when I slam yellow back Jimmy Carter even if you may not agree. You have certainly earned your right to state your opinions. At least you didn't go to Canada as a U.S. draftee - you have earned my admiration. Now if you would just switch political affiliations all would be right with the world. I'm just kidding.

Originally Posted by rokid

No, just a Vietnam vet. I got drafted in 1969, did my two years, and earned the right to express my opinion. If you don't like it, too f**king bad.

Frankly, I thought we were having a civil and interesting discussion. However, I'm not interested in exchanging ad hominem attacks. As far as I'm concerned, the discussion has ended.----Jim

There is no attack, ad hominem or otherwise.

n ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

The subject of the discussion is clear, and your character is not an issue, unless you choose to make it so.

And, the conversation is civil. I support your right to express opinion. However, as you are free to express your opinion, certainly you should support any one who would challenge your assertions. And though you have served, your right to express an opinion is not earned, but comes with citizenship. I applaud your service, but it does not give you a superior right to express an opinion. However, your opinion will be informed by your life experience and for that you have my respect.

Ultimately, your retreat to the use of explicatives does not buttres your position and adds nothing to the discussion. If you choose to participate, you must accept that people will disagree with you. If you posit a particular notion, there is every likliehood that you may be expected to defend it. That's why it is called a forum. An exchange of ideas. When you feel that you need to post entries as you have, do not be suprised when you are taken to task.

And, as you will note if you care to search the archives, I will maintain composure and diginity and will continue in a relentless fashion as long as you continue to post inflammatory material.

However, as you say, you have ended discussion in this regard. I suspect that you will continue to post in the fashion that you have. As long as you do, please do not labor under the false assumption that other participants will let it stand without challenge. Other voices will not be silenced by your anger.

This forum is just that, a forum. It is not a blog. And to that end, I will write to preserve the essence of what we do here.

Originally Posted by rokid

Hey, no problem. I graduated from a Jesuit university. However, I no longer believe in Catholic dogma and theology. No tension at all.

However, as a result of your response, I did some Googling. Apparently, the Catholic Church is not of one opinion on abortion. I found a rather lively debate.

'Donceel notes that Thomas Aquinas "spoke of six weeks for the male embryo and three months for the female embryo." In Aquinas’s hylomorphic theory, the matter had to be ready to receive the appropriate form. According to such principles, as Rosemary Ruether points out, "Thomas Aquinas might well have had to place the point of human ensoulment in the last trimester if he had been acquainted with modern embryology."' I also found arguments on the opposite side.

http://www.religion-online.org/showa...asp?title=1677

I'm glad to see the Church is still struggling with the issue. The Church's intellectual tradition, particularly among the Jesuits, "the soldiers of Christ",has always been a strong point.

Actually, the Church is not struggling with this position which is clear, that life begins as conception. Ruether's supposition that Aquinas would have placed ensoulment in the third trimester is in conflict with all else that he (Aquinas) has said on the subject. Modern embryology would most likely have moved his view of ensoulment to the point of conception, or rather "potential" conception as opposed to the 40 days post conception but prior to "quickening" Maybe you should Google a bit more, as Ruether is hardly considered in step with traditional church dogma. Your credentials as having graduated from a Jesuit institution does not validate your theological insight, unless you earned an M. Div. But if that was the case, you would not have needed to have a reference provided for you as you would be intimately familiar with the works cited.

http://www.ewtn.com/vote/Catholic_Politicians/index.asp

Originally Posted by Birchtree

Rokid,

So you know what I'm talking about when I slam yellow back Jimmy Carter even if you may not agree. You have certainly earned your right to state your opinions. At least you didn't go to Canada as a U.S. draftee - you have earned my admiration. Now if you would just switch political affiliations all would be right with the world. I'm just kidding.

Birch,

Just keep expressing yourself. It's your right. As far as my switching political affiliations, you're just SOL.

I hope your daughter is doing well.----Jim