Major Moral Issue

[ElizabethVu]

Yeah, all those who disagree with you would lack discernment.

No, only those who think the most civilized military in the history of the world is as bad as the Muslims who torture, murder and bomb innocent people in the name of their religion.

I remember the massacre at Fallujah where America used napalm on innocent men women and children and just kept killing until there was only charred meat left.

While I disagree with using the Mark 77 bombs, which is what we used, not napalm, we used it on a city filled with the enemy, and even gve the people living there fair warning that we were going to essentially level the city. As opposed to say, Dresden were the Brits killed more poeple than died in both Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, by firebombing the city.

We're far worse than the Muslims who oppose us.

I didn't know we repeatedly targeted women and children for demolition. I didn't know we routinely kidnap people and torture them for being on the wrong side. I didn't know we aduct a man's family and hold them at gunpoint to force that man to drive though a checkpoint with a bomb and make a martyr out of himself to save his family.

They are fighting for their countries, their freedom, their homes and their families.

The same families they blow up with their IEDS? Freedom? We gave them democracy, we liberated them from a madman, if they want freedom, all they have to do is participate in the political proccess. But instead, they'ld rather blow eachother up and star a civil war. By they, I mean the Iranians and Al-Queda that have infiltrated the country to destabilize it and drive us out. Nam redux.

We are fighting for oil and hegemony......the right to cheap gas.

Cuz gas is cheaper now than it was in '03...oh wait...

They are honorable.....we are the terrorists.

I'm glad you think people who kill women and children to get with agenda across are honorrable. I'm glad you think people who abduct their enemy and leave their mutilated bodies to cook in the sun with their eyes gouged out and their genitals in their mouths, are honorable. Personally, I believe you are the enemy within.

 

[Texas Lynn]

instating god in schools. Or "in god we trust" breaking the first amendmant.

Do you mean "instituting"?

I think I know what you're getting at. I like the comment "forced religion is worse than no religion at all".

 

[quatona]

Well, I have thought about the war. To be honest, I don't think that I can come up with an answer to whether is was right or wrong. I mean, should we have gone over there in the first place and should we still be there? All I know is what the media feeds me, and how can I trust that? I heard on one channel that we're dong good but another blasts the purpose and says there's no hope!

I´m wondering the following:
Back when I went to school "writing a paper" did not mean to take or advocate a stance nor to come up with a solution. It was rather about describing, paraphrasing and analyzing the relevant aspects.

 

[2theBone]

I didn't know we repeatedly targeted women and children for demolition. I didn't know we routinely kidnap people and torture them for being on the wrong side. I didn't know we aduct a man's family and hold them at gunpoint to force that man to drive though a checkpoint with a bomb and make a martyr out of himself to save his family.

Ah, Elizabeth......you are like a little Ann Coulter in training, parroting all the right-wing slogans like a good little robot.

The REASON we are worse than the Muslims you call terrorists is because NONE of the things you mention would be happening if WE were not IN their territory AGGRESSING against THEM.

Christian America is and has been for 75 years determined to hold hegemony over the Middle East to control the flow of oil at any cost.

Therefore Christian America has caused untold millions of deaths and incalculable amounts of pain and suffering to the people of that region.

That's what it's all about. That's why airplanes hit the towers.

We are the CAUSE. We CONTINUE to be that cause.

That's why WE are the terrorists.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I´m wondering the following:
Back when I went to school "writing a paper" did not mean to take or advocate a stance nor to come up with a solution. It was rather about describing, paraphrasing and analyzing the relevant aspects.

That's exposition. Apparently this assignment is persuasion. One should generally be competent at the latter before attempting the former.

 

[Alexandrah]

Forgive me if these have been mentioned.

1. Cloning

or

2. Genetically modified food

There are people on both sides, clear pro and negative reactions and the topics affect everyone.

I'm sure you've picked a topic already though.

 

[shmee]

"if they want freedom, all they have to do is participate in the political process"

lol at this

 

[ElizabethVu]

Ah, Elizabeth......you are like a little Ann Coulter in training, parroting all the right-wing slogans like a good little robot.The REASON we are worse than the Muslims you call terrorists is because NONE of the things you mention would be happening if WE were not IN their territory AGGRESSING against THEM.

So you perceive a foreign invader taking over your country, and your solution is to strap on a bomb and kill dozens of your own neighbors to kill the American handing out food to them? And I'm sorry, there has been violence and barbarity in the Mideast before even WW1.

 

[cantata]

I´m wondering the following:
Back when I went to school "writing a paper" did not mean to take or advocate a stance nor to come up with a solution. It was rather about describing, paraphrasing and analyzing the relevant aspects.

I think it depends on the subject.

In my philosophy essays, I am expected to argue in favour of a strong conclusion. For example, at the moment I'm working on an essay where the question is "Can you convince someone to act morally by appeal to her self-interest?" I am required to give a yes or no answer to that question, and to support my conclusion.

However, in my theology essays, I am generally expected rather to state the opinions of various scholars and to assess those views. I am not expected to draw strong conclusions. For example, at the moment I am working on an essay where the title is "What are the issues debated in Russell McCutcheon ed. The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion, and how do they overlap the issues you have so far studied?" As you can see, the question does not ask me to take a stand on the quality of the arguments about the issues raised in the book. It merely asks me to point out their relevance to my area of study.

/derailing

 

[elman]

Zounds!!!

The current war crimes being perpetrated in Iraq and Afghanistan, the torture and false imprisonment being sanctioned by America there, our support of the criminal occupation of Palestine by the Zionists with the ongoing murder, torture and false imprisonment of Palestinians.......

None of this occurred to you?

Amazing. Why is that?

How about the moraity of misreporting world events?

 

[quatona]

I think it depends on the subject.

In my philosophy essays, I am expected to argue in favour of a strong conclusion. For example, at the moment I'm working on an essay where the question is "Can you convince someone to act morally by appeal to her self-interest?" I am required to give a yes or no answer to that question, and to support my conclusion.

However, in my theology essays, I am generally expected rather to state the opinions of various scholars and to assess those views. I am not expected to draw strong conclusions. For example, at the moment I am working on an essay where the title is "What are the issues debated in Russell McCutcheon ed. The Insider/Outsider Problem in the Study of Religion, and how do they overlap the issues you have so far studied?" As you can see, the question does not ask me to take a stand on the quality of the arguments about the issues raised in the book. It merely asks me to point out their relevance to my area of study.

/derailing

Yes, you are correct: there are several different exercises with different purposes. I was wondering why the OP naturally assumed that it was about taking a strong stance and defending it.
I´m honestly glad to see that in some parts of the world there are still thinking methods taught that go beyond mere polarizing, antagonizing, black/white and demonizing those who disagree.