my personal political philosophy

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I also don’t believe there is such thing as ‘morally bankrupt’. That is because I do not think there is such think as ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’! Depending on exactly what you mean by ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’, they are either superstitious concepts or meaningless concepts.
And, again, depending on exactly what you mean by ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’, all moral proposit ...[text shortened]... ind of non-arbitrary criteria unless that non-arbitrary criteria is based on arbitrary criteria.[/b]

OK, so Bush went to war in the Middle East. Some would say that he did so because God told him. They say this because he was supported by the religious right. By what you just said I would presume that you would say that he was superstitious and unfit. However, others say it was over oil. In this case I assume that you would "OK" this moral concept because of the importance of access to foriegn oil the US has. I say this because I get the since that you really don't think there is a right and wrong, rather, there is only the here and now on basing decisions on materialistic concepts and not immaterial and superstitious concepts.

Am I right? After all, I don't want to put any more words in your mouth. 😛

Originally posted by whodey
OK, so Bush went to war in the Middle East. Some would say that he did so because God told him. They say this because he was supported by the religious right. By what you just said I would presume that you would say that he was superstitious and unfit. However, others say it was over oil. In this case I assume that you would "OK" this moral concept becau s concepts.

Am I right? After all, I don't want to put any more words in your mouth. 😛

“…However, others say it was over oil. In this case I assume that you would "OK" this moral concept because of the importance of access to foreign oil the US has….”

How can I “OK” a ‘moral concept’ if I don’t think there is such thing as ‘moral’? 😛

“…I say this because I get the since that you really don't think there is a right and wrong…”

Correct! Or at least not morally right or morally wrong. There is still ‘logically correct‘ and ‘logically incorrect‘ and 'wise' and ‘unwise’ and subjectively ‘pleasant’ and subjectively ‘unpleasant’ and subjectively 'desirable' and subjectively 'undesirable‘ and I still have a implicit mutual agreement with society to cooperate with others and do no harm to others: but this is not a ‘morality’ but rather just some extremely subtle social psychology as a result of my innate predisposition that I share with virtually all human beings (at least I hope virtually all of them) to want to be, vaguely put, ’nice' to other people. 🙂

No offence meant 🙂

Originally posted by whodey
Actually, the Soviets simply could not keep up with the US technologically and economically in the arms race. I think this is one of the items that made them realize this fact. They spent far to much of the resources trying to keep up with the US until one day they woke up and realized the game was over then down came the walls!!!

This is a right wing fairy tale. There isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that the USSR dissolved because of the arms race and such a belief is silly in the extreme.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a right wing fairy tale. There isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that the USSR dissolved because of the arms race and such a belief is silly in the extreme.

I did not mean to imply that it was the ONLY cause, however, it was part of the puzzle. Their economy simply collapsed from within. It was nothing they wanted to have happen, rather, it was something that naturally had to occur.