Or Why Not?

[Simon W. Moon]

So then why don't you join Al Qaeda since you know, some of its members are "bad" and you agree with them on some of thier points about American interventionism.

Some of their members are unsavory and since I have 'honor and integrity' I cannot associate with them.
Recently, I have set in motion the means to disassociate myself from the entirety of mankind because some them are scumbags. I cannot wait to get that paperwork processed so that I can have my 'honor and integrity' back.

Some people who believe in God are unsavory sorts so I had to give up religion to save my 'honor and integrity.' Sad really, but what can you do?
Can't be associated with that sort of scum no matter how fleetingly so.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Way to abandon all logical consistency.

It's the cause of the group that is paramount. Bad apples exist everywhere.

:lol:


So Ayers came on this commitee after obama. Is that right. If so, where is obama opposing his admission to the committee...


And why did his wife invite him onto a panel that obama served on and praised?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Some of their members are unsavory and since I have 'honor and integrity' I cannot associate with them.
Recently, I have set in motion the means to disassociate myself from the entirety of mankind because some them are scumbags. I cannot wait to get that paperwork processed so that I can have my 'honor and integrity' back.

Some people who believe in God are unsavory sorts so I had to give up religion to save my 'honor and integrity.' Sad really, but what can you do?
Can't be associated with that sort of scum no matter how fleetingly so.

I will only comment to say, Godspeed on your endeavor, may you succeed beyond your wildest dreams.

 

[Thorgasm]

:lol:


So Ayers came on this commitee after obama. Is that right. If so, where is obama opposing his admission to the committee...


And why did his wife invite him onto a panel that obama served on and praised?

Maybe her religion teaches redemption.

 

[rivrrat]

Of course I would. If for no other reason than to undermine the "scum" person and try to get them off the committee.

I can't imagine declining to help people when you know you can help them simply because you don't like someone.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Maybe her religion teaches redemption.

Redemption requires remorse.


You are free to show me Ayers "remorse" anytime chief.

 

[Tucker Case]

So its cool that the Hells Angels run guns and drugs, but you would serve on a committee with some of them because they do cancer runs?

Huh?

If I'm in a charity, and someone else joins, I am still alright with what the charities goals are. I agree with the charity regardless of any connection to this committee member. The committee member is a red herring.

The actions of a single board member is not the action of the charity. If the acts of the charity are good, and wholesome, I join it regardless of the members personal lives.

They cannot detract form the overall good. Now if the charity itself runs drugs and guns, I already would not belong to it, regardless of who is involved. Mother Teresa could be involved and I wouldn't be involved with that charity. Ever.

I base my judgments on the deeds of the charity, not unrelated stuff regarding board members.

Me? I would find a different charity.
And if that different charity brought in a scum like ayers I would resign and find another.

So you just "surrender" the charity over to him just like that? You would let the terrorists (or terrorist in this case) win?



I'm just kidding. I don't denigrate the choice you would make.

I can see how that is adhering to your understanding of honor and integrity.

I just would make a different choice and that choice would be adhering to my understanding of honor and integrity.

Honor and integrity.

For you, it would be dishonorable to be associated with him for any cause. That's fine.

But my understanding of honor and my integrity would not let me "shirk" my duties because of the personal discomfort it would cause.

Granted, the fact that I would stay for reasons that could be construed as honorable by my understanding does not necessarily mean that Obama stayed for th same reasons. I have no idea why he stayed.

I can tell you that I would also have stayed.

I'm defending the fact that I would have made the same choice as Obama for honorable reasons. That my integrity would force me to stay, no matter how distasteful I find the man.


But all of this assumes that I would work for the charity in question to begin with if Ayers were not involved. The addition of Ayers to the equation doesn;t change the equation. He's a non factor except to make me more adamant about not surrendering the charity over to the control of his ilk.

Now if the charity started doing deeds that I could not abide by, because of a fundamental difference between me and the other board members, I would leave. Only if the charity changed to the point that I would not associate with it based on its own merits.

 

[Tucker Case]

We're done. I am in no mood for smartass, smarmy bull**** today.

Then why'd you ask "Ohhh, how much evil has been achieved in the name of "the greater good"?"

Did you think that could be mistaken for an astute observation? Or was it just smart ass smarmy bull****?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Huh?

If I'm in a charity, and someone else joins, I am still alright with what the charities goals are. I agree with the charity regardless of any connection to this committee member. The committee member is a red herring.

The actions of a single board member is not the action of the charity. If the acts of the charity are good, and wholesome, I join it regardless of the members personal lives.

They cannot detract form the overall good. Now if the charity itself runs drugs and guns, I already would not belong to it, regardless of who is involved. Mother Teresa could be involved and I wouldn't be involved with that charity. Ever.

I base my judgments on the deeds of the charity, not unrelated stuff regarding board members.

So if you were on a charity and they admitted a klan member, you would not have an issue with it, because they do "good works"?


If the committee admitted such a person. to me that would indicate a disconnect between my beliefs and morals.

I would leave said committee...

So you just "surrender" the charity over to him just like that? You would let the terrorists (or terrorist in this case) win?

If the majority of this charity voted this man in, I would not "surrender" my morals to this now morally bankrupt charity.

I'm just kidding. I don't denigrate the choice you would make.

I can see how that is adhering to your understanding of honor and integrity.

I just would make a different choice and that choice would be adhering to my understanding of honor and integrity.




For you, it would be dishonorable to be associated with him for any cause. That's fine.

But my understanding of honor and my integrity would not let me "shirk" my duties because of the personal discomfort it would cause.

Granted, the fact that I would stay for reasons that could be construed as honorable by my understanding does not necessarily mean that Obama stayed for th same reasons. I have no idea why he stayed.

I can tell you that I would also have stayed.

I'm defending the fact that I would have made the same choice as Obama for honorable reasons. That my integrity would force me to stay, no matter how distasteful I find the man.


But all of this assumes that I would work for the charity in question to begin with if Ayers were not involved. The addition of Ayers to the equation doesn;t change the equation. He's a non factor except to make me more adamant about not surrendering the charity over to the control of his ilk.

Now if the charity started doing deeds that I could not abide by, because of a fundamental difference between me and the other board members, I would leave. Only if the charity changed to the point that I would not associate with it based on its own merits.

I see your point and can understand it. I however disagree and if this charity voted in a member of ill repute like terrorist ayers... oh wait my bad... for the leftist apologists here.... Former unrepentant terrorist ayers who said he did not do enough, I would leave said charity as they do not share my same morals and convictions any longer.

 

[jallman]

Then why'd you ask "Ohhh, how much evil has been achieved in the name of "the greater good"?"

Did you think that could be mistaken for an astute observation? Or was it just smart ass smarmy bull****?

Perhaps tomorrow, but today, I intend to maintain my cheerful demeanor. Indulging this crap is not conducive to that goal.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Perhaps tomorrow, but today, I intend to maintain my cheerful demeanor. Indulging this crap is not conducive to that goal.

Did ya get my pm?

 

[jallman]

2 points for being a hypocrite and a cop-out.

Where is the hypocrisy?

2 points for being an irrelevant, lying idiot.

 

[jallman]

Did ya get my pm?

No......what's up with that? Seriously, no I didn't.

 

[Tucker Case]

So if you were on a charity and they admitted a klan member, you would not have an issue with it, because they do "good works"?

Oh, I would definitely have an issue with it, but that alone would not make me leave the charity. It would be dependent on what happens next more than anything.

If the committee admitted such a person. to me that would indicate a disconnect between my beliefs and morals.

I would leave said committee...

I can see you point. I think that the actual situation would need to be assesed on a case-by-case basis.

If the majority of this charity voted this man in, I would not "surrender" my morals to this now morally bankrupt charity.

I would asses that case by case. But in some cases, yes I would agree that it could mean that. Perhaps though, the board memebrs were only made aware of his positive work.

I see your point and can understand it. I however disagree and if this charity voted in a member of ill repute like terrorist ayers... oh wait my bad... for the leftist apologists here.... Former unrepentant terrorist ayers who said he did not do enough, I would leave said charity as they do not share my same morals and convictions any longer.

My point is that you might not have been aware of his history. I went to UIC and I was shocked to hear that my alma mater associated with a known terrorist. I've inadvertantly worked in similar charites through UIC with a former terrorist. How could I have known? The default assumtpion is that peopelare not terrorists.

And the last place you expect to find one is on the board of a charity.

 

[Lightdemon]

Where is the hypocrisy?

Right here.

I disagree, Rev.

I believe That a portion of that honor and integrity means you put aside your own biases in order to achieve the greater good.

Ohhh, how much evil has been achieved in the name of "the greater good"?

We're done. I am in no mood for smartass, smarmy bull**** today.

And I see that you did not contest being a cop-out.

 

[jallman]

Right here.








And I see that you did not contest being a cop-out.

So basically, you have a reading comprehension problem. Good to know.

 

[Lightdemon]

So basically, you have a reading comprehension problem. Good to know.

Alright Jallman, I'll catch you when you stop PMSing.

 

[Frolicking Dinosaurs]

So then why don't you join Al Qaeda since you know, some of its members are "bad" and you agree with them on some of thier points about American interventionism.

Dirka dirka..... :roll:

I don't join Al Qaeda because I don't believe in their goals or the underlying beliefs. However, that has nothing - nothing at all - to do with being on the charitable board of an organization I do believe in.

Some people are just pious blowhards who have to have everything oh-so-pure-and-holy in their little world and avoiding the very appearance of evil -- the rest of us are out there getting the charitable work done. Why? In my case because Christ Himself didn't stay away from those with a checkered past when good needed doing and I want to be like Him when I grow up.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I don't join Al Qaeda because I don't believe in their goals or the underlying beliefs. However, that has nothing - nothing at all - to do with being on the charitable board of an organization I do believe in.

Some people are just pious blowhards who have to have everything oh-so-pure-and-holy in their little world and avoiding the very appearance of evil -- the rest of us are out there getting the charitable work done. Why? In my case because Christ Himself didn't stay away from those with a checkered past when good needed doing and I want to be like Him when I grow up.

dood was a terrorist. it was not like he said mean things about whitey at his church or anything. :mrgreen:

 

[missypea]

I wish I would have made this a poll. It seems that the split is the right leaning people wouldn't serve on a committee and the left leaning would.

hmmmmm...


:shock:

 

[John1234]

Serve on the committee.

If you know your objectives and the committee can help you meet them, it is not relevant "who" else is on the committee.

 

[mikhail]

Wow you are all coming across like a real fun committee to be a part of.Its the goal thats important not the people you are working with.

 

[The silenced majority]

Stop the freaking spin already.


The rhetoric of the Weathermen, Frank Marshall Davis & Jeremiah Wright is virtually indistinguishable from one another.


“White youth must choose sides now. They must either fight on the side of the oppressed, or be on the side of the oppressor.”

Who said that?

Frank Marshall Davis
Jeremiah Wright
or
Bernadine Dohrn

 

[missypea]

Stop the freaking spin already.

Does that mean that you wouldn't serve?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- (but he/she must be SCUM).

Do you serve on the committee or do you decline?

Why? --

I'm afraid the only example I can think of is a UK example, I've only read of your "Ayers" character so I don't quite understand all the connotations.

The history of Northern Ireland and the conflicts there (including killings, kneecapping and drug-running to finance guns) eventually ended when "scum" - in each others eyes finally sat down and thrashed out a peace deal. It took a while for that peace deal to take effect but good people and scum had to be involved for it to take effect. Neither of the two warring sides apologised at first, neither said sorry for what they had been involved in but both sides could see the greater good they could achieve and eventually we have peace there.

I even watched the programs when Archbishop Desmond Tutu was invited from South Africa to hold "peace and reconciliation" hearings by killers and the victims families. That was incredibly moving television and I think it helped with some of the pent up anger. (**EDIT**it was the families and the scum who invited him - not the BBC or the politicians **EDIT**)

Using that process as an example, I would sit on the committee. If I felt I could achieve or help in some way with the charity's cause I would stay and try but if I felt I couldn't help except to cause friction with the "scum" then I would decline or leave.