Protestantism
Religion in Politics
- pink101
- redback
- redback
- pink101
- redback
- pink101
- Migisi
- redback
- pink101
- Migisi
« Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »
» pink101 - Nice dodge
In response to Nice dodge posted by BrianTubbs:.
Nice dodge - and there goes the study of history.
.
heh heh heh
.
But, no way, Brian. My statement was made in the context of our discussion. You have removed it from its context.
.
Certainly, historical records are important as they give us depth and perspective as we move into the future. But, I understood your question about Abraham Lincoln to be a measure of some authenticity for what is taking place today. We could discuss that idea; but, you are prone to not stick around long enough for us to flesh any complex ideas out.
.
My comment that you quoted was qualified by "... in and of itself ...". If you rephrase your question with some thought for the future so that it is relative to some goal or objective, then, maybe I could do it more credit. YOU know, we could wonder about the purposes that we DO study it whether it is our personal, group, or overall history.
.
-- posted by pink101
» redback - Jeff's test
In response to Jeff's test posted by pink101:Hey Pink and Brian and all else
My thoughts on this discussion are that responses clearly citing my post seek a response from me. Of course, they're open to all here (is that 4 or 5?) and I'm NOT limiting replies. BUT your rule of citing my user name within the post before it refers to me...? My responses to a (Pink) post where I cite (Pink) are for (Pink) to respond to AND any one else. Subtly different "rule". But in any event, a discussion format vs 3 bald questions incite different responses. Anyway, I whinged BUT I directly responded seeking a response to my substantive comments, not my whinge...and now I'm reading responses. 
I AM trying to engage you guys but it seems if I throw around a few insults I'll incite mutual cries of cyber friendship.
Brian...I still have no trouble remembering you can't reply to all my posts...even the ones you directly refer to me and I respond to. ABC
We are at war on terror so no nation is in defined 'peace' is it? If we offered the terrorist certain forms of 'soft' justice, we apparently play into their hands by showing weakness. If we impose other forms eg sanctions etc we have enduring war.
Justice in part can be measured by the relative absence of injustice - hence trying to identify a tolerable or minor injustice for the sake of an (uneasy) peace such as has existed within the USA since the War of Independence, within Australia etc.
'Peace' can be dissected too. Such as the peace the acceptance of Jesus apparently can bring to an individual so that inertia to worldly injustices exists. Ask such a Christian their views...I have.
----
Pink...it's not only whether we have "...a unified understanding..." of what justice means, it's also whether it will be accepted whatever it's called. When I made mention of the sacred cow of it, there seems to me a tendency to throw the term at people who can't seem to accept it's JUSTICE they're getting whether they want that brand or not.
And to me, tis more sensible to look at a tangible concept then ask if it has elements of justice in it...in a world where I believe no absolute justice exists. Like you say re tit for tat: We can give 'justice' but only if there's something in it for us...if it costs us less than it costs them. Otherwise, why hasn't US brand justice extended to 'less important'** parts of the world.
Pink, Brian, anyone?
** 3C
BTW: no-one's saying justice is free of cost, are they? Justice delayed is justice denied etc.
-- posted by redback
» redback - Hey Brian
In response to Hey Redback posted by BrianTubbs:
Hey Brian
"But, if you direct something at me...I will try to respond."
Well, given this exchange arose from your direct post to me, you haven't lived up to your challenge. Unless "I agree with Pink..." is your response??? Agree on what???
Hey Brian.
-- posted by redback
» pink101 - What Time
In response to Jeff's test posted by redback:.
I--pretty much--agree with your post.
.
We are post modernists and, so, our words need specificity. Why? Because we have decontexualized our language. Words must be understood as they are used in context--as they are framed to convey one meaning or another. And, sometimes, we have to define them as we use them. The word, justice, is one of those words that means different things to different people; so, it almost always requires qualifiers.
.
That's all I meant.
.
What time of the day is it down there? It's about 3:20 in the afternoon here.
.
-- posted by pink101
» Migisi - What Time
In response to What Time posted by pink101:
.
Afternoon
http://www.koalanet.com.au/australian-sl...
-- posted by Migisi
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.