B
Bradskii
Guest
Morality and the law are not the same thing.
Last edited:
- Status
N
niceatheist
Guest
The bigger problem with the statement is that it is a non sequitur.po18guy:
Morality and justice are not the same thing.
E
edwest211
Guest
Technically, the Soviets were our enemy. The US began cracking Russian codes during the war. General Patton issued a warning about them. Germany was doomed? Why do you think that? Post-war reports from the Americans and the British clearly stated that the war could have been lost. A British expert said that if the war had been ‘allowed’ to continue for another six months, the Germans would deploy entirely new threats in the air. That would explain thousand bomber raids and a general increase in sorties towards the end of the war. Sure, the average person thought Germany was finished. Far from it.
B
Bradskii
Guest
Very interesting, Ed. Now we return to the discussion about ethics. As a prompt:
Who do you think makes the decision about moral problems?
E
edwest211
Guest
The Catholic Church has made and continues to make and issue documents exposing and defining wrong ideas about morality and offers corrective instruction.
N
niceatheist
Guest
Technically, no they weren’t. They were Allies. That’s not to say anyone particularly trusted them, and the Brits, for instance, had to essentially ignore egregious actions like the Partition of Poland and the Winter War (which, unfortunately, made Finland a belligerent). But there was an incredibly high level of cooperation, including the conferences and lower level meetings. The USSR was an Allied Power during the Second World War. Churchill later wrote that the moment Germany invaded the Soviet Union, he felt the Nazis would lose the war, if for no other reason than they had created a vast eastern front.
I think the British and later American position on the Soviet Union during World War II can best be described by Churchill’s famous statement, after being called out on aligning with the Soviets:
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
The Western Allies and the Soviet Union may have been allies of convenience, but without the Soviet’s pinning down a huge portion of the German Army on the eastern front, if there was victory, it would have been a lot harder to maintain. Churchill was afraid during the initial stage of the invasion of Russia that Stalin might take the Soviet government and flee over the Urals, and certainly Stalin’s behavior after Moscow learned of the invasions could best be described as panic. The Brits had already seen France fold under the Nazi onslaught, and he desperately needed the Soviets in the fight.
I think the British and later American position on the Soviet Union during World War II can best be described by Churchill’s famous statement, after being called out on aligning with the Soviets:
“If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.”
The Western Allies and the Soviet Union may have been allies of convenience, but without the Soviet’s pinning down a huge portion of the German Army on the eastern front, if there was victory, it would have been a lot harder to maintain. Churchill was afraid during the initial stage of the invasion of Russia that Stalin might take the Soviet government and flee over the Urals, and certainly Stalin’s behavior after Moscow learned of the invasions could best be described as panic. The Brits had already seen France fold under the Nazi onslaught, and he desperately needed the Soviets in the fight.
S
SimonAnoff
Guest
Interesting what this thread has become.
Last edited:
N
niceatheist
Guest
And to give you an idea of just how important the Soviets were to their Western counterparts, the invasion of Iran to take over control of the Trans-Iranian Railway to give another key means of shipping supplies to the Soviet Union was an example of how the cooperative elements of the alliance could work. It would also have interesting overtones in the decades afterwards, as of the British-Soviet invasion of Iran was forcing the abdication of Reza Shah, and placing Crown Prince Pahlavi on the throne, turning Iran from a Nazi-sympathizing Eastern power into an ally, which it would remain until the 1979 revolution.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
The Russians were totally opposed to Western Capitalism. The Russians were atheists, which, at the time, was the opposite of Western society and Western ethics and morals. Did US intelligence during the war, trust the Russians? They did not. The OSS was producing reports that included all countries in Europe, and others, that were doing anything that could be considered bad for US interests and the war effort.
The Eastern Front was necessary. Few people know about the non-German volunteers who fought with the Germans there. One of five of the soldiers there were not native Germans. Tactically, had the Russians moved into German occupied territory at full strength, there would be an obvious disadvantage.
The partitioning of the world that occurred at the various conferences was necessary. The Allies had to make sure that negotiations with the Russians, and the Chinese, did not result in unacceptable circumstances.
Churchill would consider anyone an ally as long as it saved Britain.
The Eastern Front was necessary. Few people know about the non-German volunteers who fought with the Germans there. One of five of the soldiers there were not native Germans. Tactically, had the Russians moved into German occupied territory at full strength, there would be an obvious disadvantage.
The partitioning of the world that occurred at the various conferences was necessary. The Allies had to make sure that negotiations with the Russians, and the Chinese, did not result in unacceptable circumstances.
Churchill would consider anyone an ally as long as it saved Britain.
B
Bradskii
Guest
What do they say about factory farming or global warming or deforrestation? At a guess - nothing. So when we have moral problems where the church hasn’t issued directives, who makes a decision on these matters.
It’s you, Ed. Unless you want to tell us differently.
E
edwest211
Guest
Having fun? Sure you are. Let’s start with global warming.
https://catholicclimatecovenant.org/encyclical
https://catholicclimatecovenant.org/encyclical
B
Bradskii
Guest
Good point. So if the Catholic church issues an encyclical on global warming then that’s good enough for you. The call has been made by your church. Or, as I suggested, do you have to decide yourself if what they say is correct?
Let’s see.
Do you agree with the church or have you decided that they are wrong? Does Ed believe
that (the quote above which you posted) climate change is real and ‘mainly a result of human activity’?
Then see if you can find one on factory farming.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
Di you know that Jesus is a Jew?
- Judaism’s Talmud: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow men".
That’s all for this effort at deflection. Start a new thread.
E
edwest211
Guest
Church documents are directed towards the faithful and all men of good will. It doesn’t matter if anyone is Catholic or not. Aside from evaluating scientific findings, the Church includes man’s moral responsibilities.
B
Bradskii
Guest
So…do you agree with the encyclical or have you made up your own mind?
I know what the answer is…I just want you to tell us all.
E
edwest211
Guest
Mind reading again?
B
Bradskii
Guest
So even though you thought it was vacuous on its own (‘the golden rule by itself is vacuous’), it’s good. Not His own original but a commony understood maxim.Bradskii:
Di you know that Jesus is a Jew?
Check out Matthew 5:17. Jesus repeats the rule. It doesn’t have to be original to be good, just true.
- Judaism’s Talmud: What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow men".
That’s all for this effort at deflection. Start a new thread.
I’m good with that.
B
Bradskii
Guest
If you post anything with the term ‘alleged climate change’ then one doesn’t need to read minds. But you can always clarify.
Do you agree with the church or have you decided that they are wrong? Does Ed believe that (the quote above which you posted) climate change is real and ‘mainly a result of human activity’?
E
edwest211
Guest
Can I see your dossier/report on me or do I have to file an FOIA request?
B
Bradskii
Guest
Just a simple question, Ed. To clarify your position on whether you let the church decide on matters such as global warming or if you make up your own mind:
Do you agree with the church or have you decided that they are wrong? Does Ed believe that (the quote above which you posted) climate change is real and ‘mainly a result of human activity’?
Edit: the report on you includes a quote by you: ‘aleged climate change’. You have the chance to deny saying that or we can surmise that you personally have decided that the church, in this matter, is wrong.
Last edited:
- Status