I couldn't read past the first two. "I don't like the Republicans (for how they treated me, for how some of my beliefs align with them), but I guess, without ever really looking, that my conservative views are more closely aligned with Republican, so I'm a Republican for life, no matter how bad they treat me or the rest of the country."
Does nobody in politics have the ability to think? It's no better than fans beating each other up because someone is in a red shirt sitting in the Cowboys section, or wear
)
I couldn't read past the first two. "I don't like the Republicans (for how they treated me, for how some of my beliefs align with them), but I guess, without ever really looking, that my conservative views are more closely aligned with Republican, so I'm a Republican for life, no matter how bad they treat me or the rest of the country."
Funny how you feel the need to make up words to put in his mouth.
Democrats are anti-conservative. Republicans are a mix of conservative and anti-conservative. Both suck, but one sucks much more.
Whether you're a social conservative or a fiscal conservative, the past 6 years of majority Democrat rule is adequate evidence for a conservative to dismiss them as an option. Others are free to hold out hope, but hope doesn't mean much in politics. Votes do.
The insanity here is not in choosing a R or D, but the absolutist manner in which he identified himself as a conservative. Its like saying that I'll always believe that the theories of Issac Newton for life are absolutely true, regardless of what experiments show. You should always be willing to recalibrate your theories in light of new information. I suspect there is something else behind the conservativisim that is his real goal in life, politics, economics,etc that is unspoken. That is what the focus should be rather than the generic conversation stopper of "conservativisim".
> The insanity here is not in choosing a R or D, but the absolutist manner in which he identified himself as a conservative
You're putting words into his mouth too. And not just a little, but completely: "... but my opinions are conservative and the Republican Party reflects more of the conservative ideology."
He's not labeling himself. He is establishing an identity here. He is simply using a word to describe his opinions. One word. The insanity here is you claiming it's "insane" that he would provide
Don't have time to tear your argument apart. Political ideology should rise to a standard higher than a personal preference.
I like consuming ham => no consequence to me. I want to elect a governement that requrires all citezens to consume ham => Problem for me.
He still uses consevatisim as the benchmark for his thinking. This stuff is good, *because* its consevative. Rather than conservatisim is good because of this.
The absolutist manner in which you criticize his absolutism is... interesting. You do realize you've applied a foot bullet to your own argument, right?
If he knows what principles he stands for, why should he not proudly claim them? Moral questions are not in the same category as scientific questions.
For example, is "do not murder other people" a result of scientific experimentation, or is it based on principles? Is it subject to change and revision?
Moral absolutes aren't. You can't just say "Murder is wrong!" as an absolute statement and then quibble about what the definition of murder is. I mean, you can, if you want to tell yourself that you have some sort of superior moral character, but you're still engaged in moral relativism. Logically "Some killing is not murder" is equivalent to "Some killing is not wrong". You can feel free to take refuge in the tautological definition of murder ("wrongful killing") but otherwise you're pretty much hoist on yo
You can't just say "Murder is wrong!" as an absolute statement and then quibble about what the definition of murder is.
I'm not quibbling about the definition of a murder. I was acknowledging the reality that we don't have perfect information, and so we have to make a judgement whether a dead person was murdered or killed. The uncertainty isn't in the definition, it's in the situation - was this murder or self defense or an accident? Depends.
That we're not sure whether Col. Mustard murdered Mr. Body has no bearing on the reality that there is a definition of murder, and we can agree that someone whose action fits th
I don't get the impression that you comprehend a word of what I wrote. "Sometimes it's okay to kill people" is not compatible with moral absolutism. Contrast the statement, "Killing is always wrong," or even better, "Abortion is always wrong."
The only way that you can make the statement "Murder is always wrong" is to use a circular definition, e.g. "Murder is wrongful killing."
You're welcome to be condescending but you should work on your reading comprehension. The definition of right and wrong are not bein
I don't get the impression that you comprehend a word of what I wrote. "Sometimes it's okay to kill people" is not compatible with moral absolutism. Contrast the statement, "Killing is always wrong," or even better, "Abortion is always wrong."
"Abortion is never wrong" is no less a morally absolute statement than "Abortion is always wrong". That overlaps with "Sometimes it's okay to kill people" - which you just claimed to be incompatible with moral absolutes. Care to rethink that, or are you happy to contradict yourself?
It seems that you think that morally absolute definitions cannot have exceptions. They can't have arbitrary exceptions, but they can have absolute exceptions. Ex: Killing a man is always wrong; unless he was first at
That's a poor attempt to Godel me. "Do not murder people" is absolutely a result of social scientific research. Take a look at ethics. There can be good societal reasons based on research for ethical behavior. Or do you beleive that we must necissarily inject religeous reasoning into our laws?
That's a poor attempt to Godel me. "Do not murder people" is absolutely a result of social scientific research. Take a look at ethics. There can be good societal reasons based on research for ethical behavior. Or do you beleive that we must necissarily inject religeous reasoning into our laws?
Nope. Murder laws predate social scientific research. Attempting to back-credit science for those laws is plagiarism; unless you'd like to cite how mankind developed murder laws through trial and error using a primitive form of the scientific method. (Such a history does not exist; murder laws exist as long as man has recorded it)
Scientific results are always provisional - "We haven't disproven this yet" As such, it doesn't provide any way to inform ethics. Remember eugenics? That was the S
Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code.
-- Dave Olson
Couldn't read (Score:4, Interesting)
Does nobody in politics have the ability to think? It's no better than fans beating each other up because someone is in a red shirt sitting in the Cowboys section, or wear
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
) I couldn't read past the first two. "I don't like the Republicans (for how they treated me, for how some of my beliefs align with them), but I guess, without ever really looking, that my conservative views are more closely aligned with Republican, so I'm a Republican for life, no matter how bad they treat me or the rest of the country."
Funny how you feel the need to make up words to put in his mouth.
Democrats are anti-conservative. Republicans are a mix of conservative and anti-conservative. Both suck, but one sucks much more.
Whether you're a social conservative or a fiscal conservative, the past 6 years of majority Democrat rule is adequate evidence for a conservative to dismiss them as an option. Others are free to hold out hope, but hope doesn't mean much in politics. Votes do.
Furthermore, our political system favors two
Re:Couldn't read (Score:2, Interesting)
The insanity here is not in choosing a R or D, but the absolutist manner in which he identified himself as a conservative. Its like saying that I'll always believe that the theories of Issac Newton for life are absolutely true, regardless of what experiments show. You should always be willing to recalibrate your theories in light of new information. I suspect there is something else behind the conservativisim that is his real goal in life, politics, economics,etc that is unspoken. That is what the focus should be rather than the generic conversation stopper of "conservativisim".
Re: (Score:3)
> The insanity here is not in choosing a R or D, but the absolutist manner in which he identified himself as a conservative
You're putting words into his mouth too. And not just a little, but completely:
"... but my opinions are conservative and the Republican Party reflects more of the conservative ideology."
He's not labeling himself. He is establishing an identity here. He is simply using a word to describe his opinions. One word. The insanity here is you claiming it's "insane" that he would provide
Re: (Score:2)
Don't have time to tear your argument apart. Political ideology should rise to a standard higher than a personal preference.
I like consuming ham => no consequence to me.
I want to elect a governement that requrires all citezens to consume ham => Problem for me.
He still uses consevatisim as the benchmark for his thinking. This stuff is good, *because* its consevative. Rather than conservatisim is good because of this.
Re: (Score:2)
The absolutist manner in which you criticize his absolutism is ... interesting. You do realize you've applied a foot bullet to your own argument, right?
If he knows what principles he stands for, why should he not proudly claim them? Moral questions are not in the same category as scientific questions.
For example, is "do not murder other people" a result of scientific experimentation, or is it based on principles? Is it subject to change and revision?
The answer should be obvious - there is no im
Between the Horns (Score:2)
Moral absolutes aren't.
You can't just say "Murder is wrong!" as an absolute statement and then quibble about what the definition of murder is. I mean, you can, if you want to tell yourself that you have some sort of superior moral character, but you're still engaged in moral relativism. Logically "Some killing is not murder" is equivalent to "Some killing is not wrong". You can feel free to take refuge in the tautological definition of murder ("wrongful killing") but otherwise you're pretty much hoist on yo
Re: (Score:2)
You can't just say "Murder is wrong!" as an absolute statement and then quibble about what the definition of murder is.
I'm not quibbling about the definition of a murder. I was acknowledging the reality that we don't have perfect information, and so we have to make a judgement whether a dead person was murdered or killed. The uncertainty isn't in the definition, it's in the situation - was this murder or self defense or an accident? Depends.
That we're not sure whether Col. Mustard murdered Mr. Body has no bearing on the reality that there is a definition of murder, and we can agree that someone whose action fits th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get the impression that you comprehend a word of what I wrote. "Sometimes it's okay to kill people" is not compatible with moral absolutism. Contrast the statement, "Killing is always wrong," or even better, "Abortion is always wrong."
The only way that you can make the statement "Murder is always wrong" is to use a circular definition, e.g. "Murder is wrongful killing."
You're welcome to be condescending but you should work on your reading comprehension. The definition of right and wrong are not bein
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get the impression that you comprehend a word of what I wrote. "Sometimes it's okay to kill people" is not compatible with moral absolutism. Contrast the statement, "Killing is always wrong," or even better, "Abortion is always wrong."
"Abortion is never wrong" is no less a morally absolute statement than "Abortion is always wrong". That overlaps with "Sometimes it's okay to kill people" - which you just claimed to be incompatible with moral absolutes. Care to rethink that, or are you happy to contradict yourself?
It seems that you think that morally absolute definitions cannot have exceptions. They can't have arbitrary exceptions, but they can have absolute exceptions. Ex: Killing a man is always wrong; unless he was first at
Re: (Score:2)
That's a poor attempt to Godel me. "Do not murder people" is absolutely a result of social scientific research. Take a look at ethics. There can be good societal reasons based on research for ethical behavior. Or do you beleive that we must necissarily inject religeous reasoning into our laws?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a poor attempt to Godel me. "Do not murder people" is absolutely a result of social scientific research. Take a look at ethics. There can be good societal reasons based on research for ethical behavior. Or do you beleive that we must necissarily inject religeous reasoning into our laws?
Nope. Murder laws predate social scientific research. Attempting to back-credit science for those laws is plagiarism; unless you'd like to cite how mankind developed murder laws through trial and error using a primitive form of the scientific method. (Such a history does not exist; murder laws exist as long as man has recorded it)
Scientific results are always provisional - "We haven't disproven this yet" As such, it doesn't provide any way to inform ethics. Remember eugenics? That was the S