Theodore's World

Oh Lord - that's disgusting!

"Looks like a sequel to "Brokeback Mountain" in the making."

..sheesh,that was just wrong...O-;}

Beth it sure is, that Galloway is a very sick man. Castro is not better, no wonder they are friends. yuk!

Rob what Galloway said could be considered a threat. I wonder if anything will be done about it.

I agree it sure is wrong!

He gets my vote for dumbass of the week... only problem is there are so many others to choose. :-)
Hillarious picture by the way, ist that from his BB episode?

He made the mistake of thinking that morality can be considered rationally and quantified. Ive tried to to that often - ive been at it constantly for years. So far all I have concluded is that morality doesn't make any sense at all, and the most powerful princible of all is 'Becuase it feels right.'

(I have managed to show that it is immoral for me not to kill my cats though, as the estimated moral value of the birds they will kill during the rest of their lives is greater than the cats themselves.)

..very seriously doubt it..free speech and all..buuuut one never knows..mmmmm

*If* it's the case that Blair knowingly sent thousands to die for nothing (and all the evidence appears to show exactly that), then surely he needs to pay some sort of penalty for his mass murder?

I'd never advocate suicide bombing, of course -- I'd suggest a trial by a jury of his peers leaving to a life sentence, the same thing I advocate for Bush's similar but greater crime.

Suricou:

If you remove transcendence from moral questions what you have left is utilitarianism or subjectivism. No wonder you've been noodling the question all your life. In fact, you can't even work your way to a single approach.

Your first post contradicts your second post, where in point (1) you say that all morality is existential or subjective, and in point (2) you say that morality is equivalent, maximum or minimum benefit, which is objective. It can't be both, unless you wish to remain in a state of continuous confusion.

No offense, Suricou, but all your posts seem to drift here and there. There's no anchor unless its cynicism. And that ain't a philosophy, it's a state of mind.

As for Galloway, he's just a useless piece of garbage, not exactly without parallel in history. He's a pervert, an exhibitionist and a sado-masochist. Without a personal tyrant to beat and defile them, they find them in politics. Trouble is, today The Left can't distinguish between a slimebag and a proponent of their views, so they end up with both.

(i)Trouble is, today The Left can't distinguish between a slimebag and a proponent of their views, so they end up with both.(/i)

Kind of like the right? Or did you guys decide to use Malcolm X as your inspiration? You know "By any means necessary"

Moonbat:

If you want to play with the big kids, you have to pick something to fight about and the stay around to fight. Your obtuse..no, aggressively stupid, comment about Malcom X in the context of a discussion about Galloway proves only one thing:

You think of yourself as an intellectual, and being so you can afford to be mysterious and unclear. The "any means necessary" comment by Malcolm X has nothing remotely to do with this thread...but a pinhead like you can't resist the opportunity to show off. Beat it.

but a pinhead like you can't resist the opportunity to show off. Beat it.

Show off? Most third graders know Malcolm X said that(at least in my neck of the woods). It was intended to be taken literally and stand alone. That it was a Malcolm X quote was beside the point I simply gave "credit" before one of you did.
More on point "by any means necessary" has been the unspoken wright wing battle cry for many years.
Oh and big kids? Wow thanks for pointing that out. Do you even understand what Mr Galloway said? Or are you uncomfortable with the guilty should pay rather than the innocent?

Moonbat:

What the hell are you talking about? "...the unspoken wright wing battle cry"? Even third graders know that battle cries are not "unspoken". This might be the public school writing swill that earned you an "A" in Creative Writing, but it doesn't pass for thinking, Moonbat. What a joke.

And the spelling of the word "wright", for "right", is a completely stupid creative instrument more on the level of some eraserhead posturing Lib Arts freshmen than an honest third grader. Then again, maybe that's your public school thinking at work, too.

But I'm pleased to know that your knowledge is consistent with the third-graders in your neighborhood and you number Malcolm X among your heroes. It shows, but more to the point, your cheap moral vanity has cancelled the value of your third-grade accomplishments AND any the value of any discussion about Malcolm X.

Note to Moonbat. Quotation marks for "credit"? Why? To add weight to your idle commentary? I've searched in vain, Moonbat, and the introduction of Malcolm X seems to have originated entirely within your lefty cranium, as well as the notable quote from Malcolm. Maybe you can flesh this out a little when you enter pass your fourth grade entrance exam.

Continuing with your questions. Yes, I understand what Galloway said, and it clearly aligns with the kind of moral lunacy you seem to admire. Even allowing for the slight literal possibility that moral equivalence can be deduced from Galloway's remarks, a featherbrain like you wouldn't be up to the discussion.

It's sleepy time in third grade, Moonbat. Unfurl you rag run and take your nap.

PS to Little Moonbat:

Discomfort induced by guilt is something you'll never understand. Posing in your literary cassock and swinging your incense ball while defending Galloway, the friend to murderers, is a kind of piety that only a lefty could want.

Say George, you ever play leapfrog???

Hi Tincan Sailor....hahaha

Good to see you.