Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Up and Down (left or right?) of Morality.Follow

#27 Aug 20 2013 at 11:40 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
Elinda wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:

The US needs something in the middle.

Hmmm, like a belly-button.

We need an American Navel!


I thought the Bible Belt has it covered?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#28 Aug 20 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Good
******
49,660 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
I thought the Bible Belt has it covered?
My belt holds my pants up, but the belt loops hold my belt up. I don't really know what's happening down there. Who is the real hero?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Aug 20 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,277 posts
Elinda wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
If it adds crap social programs that takes my money to pay for someone else to get unnecessary foot fungus treatments, or huge increases in long term debt with no real measurable reward I have a problem with it. /shrug.
Being rid of mad foot-eating fungus isn't reward enough?


Don't worry, once it reaches this stage they'll be throwing cash at those people hand over foot.

Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#30 Aug 20 2013 at 11:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Let me bring you back to a thread about two would be lawmakers running against each other. The video clearly showed the scenario; A debate. One debater held up pictures of the other and attempted to humiliate her for going shopping and wearing a nice outfit. This was his path to win an election. Is this an ok 'means' to you? (say yes as you defended his behavior).

I should be the last person to tell you not to bother with Gbaji but you know this will just be a long slew of shifting boundaries, nebulous relativism and "It's okay when they do it". This is the same person who thinks it's more moral and less reprehensible to straight-up lie to your wife, children and government as you quietly skip town to bang some chick than it is to flirt (ineptly and embarrassingly) via Twitter.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Aug 20 2013 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
This is the same person who thinks it's more moral and less reprehensible to straight-up lie to your wife, children and government as you quietly skip town to bang some chick than it is to flirt (ineptly and embarrassingly) via Twitter.


That's a little specious. We all know the actual immorality here is being a Democrat.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#32 Aug 20 2013 at 3:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Democrats protect people's freedoms and try to keep people well rounded through health, education and wealth equalization. The fix the problem approach. Social engineering, if people don't feel the need to do bad things they won't.

Republicans try to keep people well rounded through direct control of their moral decisions. This is actually the removal of freedom. It's the hit it harder approach. Police state with the illusion of freedom through isolation (people tend to associate "Police state" with Democrats due to positions on gun legislation, but I feel it's the opposite.)


This is a fairly absurd (and wholly inaccurate) representation of the two approaches. I'm not surprised you'd think this though, given how far into the liberal tank our media is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Aug 20 2013 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Elinda wrote:
]I'd not add abortion to that list.


Why not? I think most people do believe that there are moral aspects to the issue of abortion. ****. I'd be concerned about anyone who didn't think there is a moral aspect. For most people, it's a conflict between the innately immoral act of terminating an otherwise viable pregnancy versus a woman's right to control her own body. People fall on all parts of the scale between those two, but that is the primary axis of the issue. If not, then what is? If there were no moral angle, then why not allow elective abortion right up to the moment of birth?



Quote:
I don't agree. I don't think democrats are clamoring for more and better ways to cheat on their spouses anymore than republicans are. If anything, I'd hold *** marriage up as proof that democrats are striving to eliminate infidelity...much more so than republicans anyways.


That's not what I was talking about. I was saying that Democrats seem to be more likely to be motivated to avoid (or conceal) behavior the public might not like, not out of an agreement with the public that said behavior is "wrong", but out of a desire to avoid the scandal and the harm it might to do their party's position and power. And Democrat supporters (aka "liberals") tend to be more likely to share this view and also be more annoyed at the fact that a scandal is occurring than at the act which may have created the scandal.

One need only look at Obama's "phony scandals" approach going on right now to see this in action. He's playing on that very viewpoint. He knows that his audience (liberals) are more willing to ignore the actions themselves, but care about the fact that a scandal (whole set of them in his case) is causing a disruption in his ability to get more important things done.


Quote:
You're repeating yourself but using more words.


I repeat myself in order to ensure that the person reading my post understands what I'm trying to say. Given that you completely missed the point I was making, it would seem like maybe *more* repetition is needed.

Quote:
Integrity is a human characteristic. Republican's haven't cornered the market on it - sorry.


I didn't say that. This is not an "all or nothing" scenario. I'm talking about trends here.

Quote:
Anyone who's ever had a civics class knows that the government should always operate under heavy scrutiny. Just say that Republicans tend to be more paranoid. Though I'd still dispute it.


Dems are much more likely to look the other way though, if the increase in government power is framed in the context of some greater "good" (like say health care reform, education reform, sexual/gender/race equality, etc). And when Republicans oppose such things, they're accused of wanting people to die from illness, or are opposed to education, or hate women, gays, blacks, etc. And liberals certainly don't blink at the prospect of jumping right on that bandwagon when it comes along.

So yeah. Liberals are vastly more likely to ignore increases in government power.

Quote:
yeah thanks, 'we' believe that too.


And yet, didn't we just have a thread where many of the forum liberals were saying that what Weiner did wasn't a big deal? I had to point out like 3 or 4 times that the issue wasn't about the sexual aspect of what he did, but that it represented both a lack of self control and a casual willingness to lie about it. And when I did that the usual response was that it shouldn't be a big deal because what he was doing wasn't that bad. Clear indication of the liberal willingness to ignore lying to the public. In this case, it doesn't matter what he was lying about, but the fact that he did it.


Quote:
Quote:
Liberals seem to believe (foolishly IMO) that it's ok for a politician to lie, cheat, steal, etc as long as they're doing so "for the cause" so to speak.
No they don't. But thanks for saying the same wrong thing in like three different ways.


See the example of Weiner above.


Quote:
Let me bring you back to a thread about two would be lawmakers running against each other. The video clearly showed the scenario; A debate. One debater held up pictures of the other and attempted to humiliate her for going shopping and wearing a nice outfit. This was his path to win an election. Is this an ok 'means' to you? (say yes as you defended his behavior).



I don't know what you're talking about (or who). Can you be more specific?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Aug 20 2013 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
]I'd not add abortion to that list.


Why not?
It's more of an ethical issue. Don't you think?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#35 Aug 20 2013 at 4:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, didn't we just have a thread where many of the forum liberals were saying that what Weiner did wasn't a big deal? I had to point out like 3 or 4 times that the issue wasn't about the sexual aspect of what he did, but that it represented both a lack of self control and a casual willingness to lie about it. And when I did that the usual response was that it shouldn't be a big deal because what he was doing wasn't that bad. Clear indication of the liberal willingness to ignore lying to the public. In this case, it doesn't matter what he was lying about, but the fact that he did it.

Weiner is tanking in the Democratic primary of a very Democratic city. He's at something like 16% or 6% now (forget which). He hasn't changed any part of his platform since the scandal re-erupted and used to be the clear front-runner. So if he's your example of how liberals don't care...

Edit: Split the difference, Quinnipiac says 10%

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 5:39pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Aug 20 2013 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,366 posts
Well, he was until you pointed that out. Don't worry, gbaji will find you another one.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#37 Aug 20 2013 at 4:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nah, he's just attach on to how the opinions of a couple non-New York people on the forum is a greater representation of the will of the NY Democratic voter than the Democratic primary voting population of New York City.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 20 2013 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
******
20,020 posts
Quote:
Why not? I think most people do believe that there are moral aspects to the issue of abortion. ****. I'd be concerned about anyone who didn't think there is a moral aspect.


I see little to it that's a moral question. As far as I'm concerned, the fetus is not a person and is therefore not afforded the rights, privileges, or protections of a person. I don't think it becomes a person until a fair bit of time after birth, but I accept birth as a convenient time to start treating it as a person for the sake of our societal health, and because it's not feasible to measure any one point where personhood emerges.

So, no, I don't see abortion as a moral issue. Certainly not "innately immoral." And even if I considered a fetus a person, I certainly don't believe that any one person has a moral obligation to forfeit control of their own body in favor of the health and happiness of another. I'm happy to offer praise to anyone who sacrifices for the sake of others, but I'm not going to attempt to morally blacken the refusal to do so.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#39 Aug 20 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
I was reading about wiener today and thinking that was a good example against Gbaji's argument and then I come here and he's somehow trying to bend it his way. That's so ******* crazy. I love it.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#40 Aug 20 2013 at 5:57 PM Rating: Good
******
49,660 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Edit: Split the difference, Quinnipiac says 10%
It's either oversampling or Weiner has momentum if his arguments during the Presidential elections are any indication.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Aug 20 2013 at 6:13 PM Rating: Excellent
I have to say, the daily show's coverage of Carlos danger has been awesome.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#42 Aug 20 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,847 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I have to say, the daily show's coverage of Carlos danger has been awesome.


Took a while to find the song.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#43 Aug 20 2013 at 8:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I was reading about wiener today and thinking that was a good example against Gbaji's argument and then I come here and he's somehow trying to bend it his way.


Because the point I was making in this thread is not about whether liberals or conservatives support or oppose someone engaged in a scandal but *why* they do so. My position is that conservatives are more likely to be upset at the actual act the person did, while liberals are more to be upset that there's a scandal. This manifests as conservatives condemning sending **** pics to people and condemning even more his lying about it, while liberals seem more upset that he was foolish enough to get caught doing this. ****. Go back and read the thread we had about this. There are a number of posts in there that give the distinct impression that if only he hadn't been caught lying about this, everything would have been fine.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Aug 20 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,865 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
]I'd not add abortion to that list.


Why not?
It's more of an ethical issue. Don't you think?


I think that's splitting hairs though. Morals are generally ethics applied to a society rather than an individual (or applied on a society wide manner). While an ethical decision generally considers just the situation in front of you in a vacuum, a moral decision weighs the opinions of the society (ok. super simple distinction anyway). Since we're talking about a social policy and the laws which might derive from that, I think it's absolutely a moral issue.

I get that some want it to be just an ethical issue (just the woman's choice with no outside influence), but in reality, it's not. Else, as I said earlier, we would not have any restrictions on abortion at all. We do. Thus, society does care.

Oh. Idiggory? Your position on abortion is ridiculously outside the mainstream though. So while interesting, it doesn't carry a lot of weight here. No politician is going to run on the "abortion is fine even up to a few weeks after birth" platform because the 99.9% of the population that doesn't think that's even remotely ok would condemn his position.

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 7:43pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Aug 20 2013 at 9:11 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,127 posts
gbaji wrote:

I suppose it's also tied into the idea that conservatives are innately distrustful of government. It's why we don't want it to have too much power, even when our guys are wielding it.



Do you enjoy the taste of lies in your mouth?


"Conservatives" enjoy large government just as ever bit as much as any leftist on the globe. You fuckers just want it large in different areas. . .sometimes.


After all it was the "conservatives" that gave Medicare the single largest expansion since it inception as an example. Another great example is the policy currently being driven by the Republican Party as a whole, in the vaunted Paul Ryan budget merely slows the exponential rate in which we are burning through borrowed money, it doesn't stop it. Where is the Paul Ryan budget failing so miserably? Defense spending.

Liberals won't cut back on social policy and Conservatives won't scale back defense spending.

Both of which, at least from my point of view, are unsustainable and mind-bogglingly so.

-NW

Edited, Aug 20th 2013 8:11pm by NaughtyWord
____________________________
The Pessimist: A person who looks both ways before crossing a one-way street.
#46 Aug 20 2013 at 11:58 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Elinda wrote:

Are you implying that Republicans are 'more' moral than democrats?


No, I'm stating that Republicans tend to want to push their beliefs onto others, while Democrats tend to accept that everyone isn't the same. As a result, the people who favor activities that others might consider "immoral" tend to flock to the Democrats. Since Democrats support the freedom of expressions, it APPEARS that Republicans are more moral than Democrats, but that isn't the case in reference to the definition of each party.

It's not that Republicans are more moral, but Democrats are more tolerable.

Elinda wrote:
...and here you imply that abortions are immoral, but tolerated for the sake of the 'woman (ugh).

Why is an abortion immoral?


No. I am stating that in an ideal environment, people wouldn't be having abortions. If you are morally against abortions, for whatever reason, then you should address the issues that place couples in those situations in the first place, not blatantly fight it when the law is the law.

You really butchered my text, but thank you for at least asking.
#47 Aug 21 2013 at 6:20 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Morals are generally ethics applied to a society rather than an individual

Or in the case of Republicans, ethics applied to THOSE people.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#48 Aug 21 2013 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,660 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because the point I was making in this thread is not about whether liberals or conservatives support or oppose someone engaged in a scandal but *why* they do so.
It actually was but you couldn't support it so, par for the course, you're mutating it to something else and hoping that'll stick.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Aug 21 2013 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
My position is that conservatives are more likely to be upset at the actual act the person did, while liberals are more to be upset that there's a scandal. This manifests as conservatives condemning sending **** pics to people and condemning even more his lying about it,

It manifests as conservatives wanting to avoid policy discussion whenever possible, because the policy positions are laughably absurd. The GOP communication cation strategy of the last 10 years has been to manufacture outrage rather than address policy. Which is fine, and obviously works, but the primary difference in style is that usually Democrats are upset about actual consequences of legislation where Republicans live in a magical victim fantasy where hard working white people can only not succeed if "other people" actively handicap them.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#50 Aug 21 2013 at 8:09 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Almalieque wrote:

No. I am stating that in an ideal environment, people wouldn't be having abortions.
You could simply state that in an ideal environment people wouldn't be having ***. Then the unwanted pregnancy issue is moot.

But still you go on to equate abortions with morality. My point was that if we (society) have decided abortions are an ok method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, why would we continue to propagate a belief that they're immoral?


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#51 Aug 21 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

But still you go on to equate abortions with morality. My point was that if we (society) have decided abortions are an ok method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy, why would we continue to propagate a belief that they're immoral?


Society hasn't decided abortions are "an ok method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy". That's a ludicrous statement. Society has decided it shouldn't be illegal, that's a massive difference. Society doesn't think drinking to unconsciousness alone in one's home is "an ok way of dealing with being sad" either, in case we're going to extrapolate other perfectly legal actions into social norms because...magic?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 53 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (53)