inquiringmind's comment history

inquiringmind said...

Bethanygray, are you saying it is wrong to "anger someone else?" What if spending your money to help someone in difficulty angers another as a waste of money? Will it make someone uncomfortable? Is it dangerous to teach someone to live by the principle of non-violent protest of racism or nationalism? What if building a massive brick monstrosity for a home in a neighborhood improves your sense of stability that you have created but creates discord and poor quality of life for your neighbor? Is that a dangerous act for you or the neighbor? Does that make you a better person, or a jerk as you say? What if you decide vaccines are dangerous and in your mind the good of your child demands that you refuse to have your children inoculated; thereby contributing to the potential for an epidemic of a crippling or deadly childhood disease?

I'm a little confused about how to generalize your personal framework for moral decision making to the breadth of human activity, or to remove its inherent contradictions posed by the presence of others.

September 16, 2014 at 9:10 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

poor connie, no forgiveness in her heart...there is only one damnable sin, and even that is perplexing.

September 15, 2014 at 11:04 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Ah, finally old connie admits that while "everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice," she, herself, has no warrant (or voice) for speaking the truth.

September 15, 2014 at 1:01 p.m.
inquiringmind said...
September 15, 2014 at 11:59 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

As far as educating young minds, liberal or not, the teacher should have asked the students to compare Bush the Younger to his namesake Herbert Hoover, or to Warren Harding or Calvin Coolidge.

September 15, 2014 at 10:56 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

Rickaroo, in other words, exceptionalism is a soul-killing narcotic.

September 15, 2014 at 9:06 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

Robin, that is all well and good except there is quite a wide bearth when it comes to deciding what "God ordains us to do."

I'm sure some folks are "Redefining right and wrong to ensure self-esteem and to avoid being labeled 'judgmental' or "'intolerant,'" but in the end it is the price of freedom in America.

Virtually every person except a demagogue who takes a careful look at ethics and morality realizes that prescriptions for right and wrong DO change, even within Biblical scripture. The entire body of Christianity revealed by the Gospels being a prima facia case where in the entire law was turned on its head by emphasis on 2 commandments as the primary encapsulation of the Law.

Or should I cite slavery, stoning adulterers, kids who masturbate (I'm sure yours never did).

The reporters/military agents' deaths in Syria or where ever the site of execution by ISIL is located is terrible but these fellows invited their own death by choosing to go to that God-forsaken land to begin with. By the way, have you read what the Hebrews did to the people in the promised land after they moved in?

How in the world you can connect ISIL with your religious-based argument is unfathomable, unless your argument is on the slippery slope where you maintain there is only one religious creed to use to define morality (which you are welcome to do at home).

No patriot can seriously support your effort in the US if it extends to dictating to other citizens a standard of behavior consistent with your religious morality but in conflict with theirs, otherwise we have to trash the Hobby Lobby decision and create a state religion, call it the RSA (Religious State of America).

The move to a secular society is the most beneficial change in society for Christianity. It puts pressure on Christians to "put their money where their mouth is." If you need government to have faith, you probably only have government and no faith.

You can't have it both ways. Teach your children well, but leave the moral teaching of mine to me - and respect Article 3 of the Bill of Rights.

Grace and peace.

September 15, 2014 at 8:55 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

Very little strong technical support for the alleged effects, but it would be interesting to see how they stack up against alcohol.

Here are some examples in the article that have questionable logic or claims:

examples: "she feels hypocritical Dad can smoke legally and her children can't." Like the Signal Mountain parents who buy kegs for the teenager children's parties.

" an increase in the number of children arriving in their emergency departments after accidentally ingesting marijuana." Is this a problem of adult negligence (as in leaving a handgun around) or of legal pot? Should we make handguns illegal since children turn up in hospitals wounded or dead from gunshots from a gun in the home??

"Long-term use early in life led to declines in IQ scores, according to a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." A single study? Does other life-factors lead to this? How are IQ scores measured? Is a pot-head, like an alcoholic more inclined to brush off the IQ test?

"Cannabis use was associated with a modest increased risk for developing depressive disorders ... . . Well, self-medication is classic for depressive disorders. The real hidden variable folks like to overlook in habitual drug use is how does the presence of a pre-existing psychological state cause it rather than the other way around.

"Research has demonstrated a "clear relationship" between cannabis and suicide," Suicide also correlates with depression. Depression correlates with self-medication with drugs...hmmmm.

"Significant correlation between greater frequency of marijuana use and increased number of inattentive symptoms was found in men ... with ADHD," So folks with ADHD tend to smoke pot?

"noting it can impair people's ability to drive automobiles and that its use is generally associated with crime." Ah, as Rickaroo points out, another "reefer madness" claim. Let's see, everyone arrested for pot possession has committed a criminal act, therefore, pot use leads to criminal acts??? Legalize pot and re-examine the statistics a couple years later.

The FP editors really need to do a better job with their homework, and to be ethically or morally consistent. Responsible regulation and taxation of pot would be pretty much the same as with alcohol, bring it under control. It is only the basic idea or fear that if someone wants to explore an "alternate" reality via a hallucinogen they must be sick or immoral. That was the prohibitionists' argument.

The only ethically consistent way to argue pot should be illegal is to argue that both alcohol AND pot should be illegal, but I do not see the FP editor(s) arguing that inclusive point. Maybe we should thrown in tobacco?

September 14, 2014 at 4:13 p.m.
inquiringmind said...

Ki, George Santayana said it more eloquently, but leaders of nations have a common flaw. They refuse to learn from history but rather think they have superior insight for the future and ignore the mistakes of the past.

September 14, 2014 at 10:34 a.m.
inquiringmind said...

In other words, it is all a lie. What is truth?

September 14, 2014 at 12:20 a.m.

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.