logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Planning Ahead, Keeping AD's community together
net2007
post Jun 13 2018, 06:03 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I was wondering if anybody else here thinks it's a good idea to have a backup plan just in case Americasdebate goes down. It's possible that Mike and Jamie will come back with further plans for AD because they're continuing to pay for the cost of the domain and thus far when the website has gone down, as it did a few days ago, they've worked to fix the problem but in the scenario that we do lose AD, we'd lose what's left of our debating community and some of us have debated here for over a decade. Personally, I've debated here since 2007, have gotten to know some of the members, and developed a lot of my debating skills here so from my perspective it'd be unfortunate to see that happen. AD is also an interesting concept in itself, I think America should have a dedicated spot to debate a range of issues, including with members of other nations when they find an interest.

As for what we'd plan to do if the website goes down, I'm open to any ideas. Perhaps we could think of a common place we'd meet in the scenario that the website goes down, or exchange contact information and figure that out at a later time, there's a number of things that we could do.

This post has been edited by net2007: Jun 13 2018, 06:06 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 53)
droop224
post Jul 29 2018, 10:10 PM
Post #41


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand. That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.

And for the record I have no problem with the points you make toward leftist hypersensitivity, but I think you miss my point. My point was directed more at Looms statement but I am extremely happy to get other conservative feedback so I'm happy you wrote something.

QUOTE(Droop)
WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?

So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jul 30 2018, 07:08 PM
Post #42


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Jul 31 2018, 12:25 AM
Post #43


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 30 2018, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.


Surprising as this may sound, I couldn't agree more. What we may disagree is the "why" this kind of remark shuts debate down. My guess is its similar to the point Looms was making. He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs. Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability. There are probably a few sociological reasons for you all. But as you see with Net2007 this is what i am trying to accomplish. I'd love for you to tell me your perception of why my statement shuts down debate, but again, i don't disagree.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Jul 31 2018, 08:26 PM
Post #44


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 30 2018, 06:25 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Jul 30 2018, 02:08 PM) *
QUOTE(droop224 @ Jul 17 2018, 09:25 PM) *
Looms, you have to understand its hard to differentiate which supremacist philosophy is truly behind the conservative belief.



Classic example of why debate isn't really possible this days.


Surprising as this may sound, I couldn't agree more. What we may disagree is the "why" this kind of remark shuts debate down. My guess is its similar to the point Looms was making. He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs. Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability. There are probably a few sociological reasons for you all. But as you see with Net2007 this is what i am trying to accomplish. I'd love for you to tell me your perception of why my statement shuts down debate, but again, i don't disagree.


Because there is an assumed inherent character or morality flaw, which therefore becomes the foundation of the discussion, directly or indirectly. There isn't really anything to debate when the other side just assumes you are a morally reprehensible person or its a morally reprehensive belief to start with. This is why most debates devolve into name calling almost immediately. If you even try to be objective about anything going on...not really even defending it...you almost instantly hear "Witch! Witch! Burn her!!!!" You can't really debate with someone who not only has no respect for you, but openly disdains you (this is directed broadly, across many conversations, with many people). Which is pretty ironic, coming from the supposedly open-minded and all inclusive group. There are certainly exceptions (on both sides) but their perspective gets drowned out in the cacophony from everyone else. I and many others I know simple stopped bothering to even try having discussions any more.


Case in point:
QUOTE
Now, it seems absurd to me as a liberal that you all think you can hold certain positions with out any moral accountability.



Who is 'you all'? We've had this conversation before, but I doubt you could explain my beliefs on most things, yet I'm lumped in with some perceived immoral group anyway. As for not holding moral accountability, this gets back to the assumed character/belief flaw. There is an assumed moral failure, without even really thinking about it. Ironic, considered that the religious right would fall into this category, yet they base almost all of their beliefs around moral accountability. But how, or maybe more importantly why, would one debate with that perspective already draped over them? It isn't worth it. You spend all of the time vainly trying to change an ingrained false perspective, which isn't going to change anyway, all while being castigated by people who don't know you at all. There's no point to it. Which is unfortunate, because aren't we at a time in our country when there are actually a great many things that need to be talked about and discussed?


QUOTE
He doesn't think its right, in any form, for his personal morality to come into question, based on his political beliefs



There is a difference between questioning it, and just assuming it is flawed. Actually, even questioning it is probably questionable. Questioning why they might hold a certain political belief is fine. Jumping right past that and questioning the morality behind it is leaping to conclusions without understanding the basis.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Jul 31 2018, 09:13 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 2 2018, 06:52 AM
Post #45


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop

QUOTE
As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand.

That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.


I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism, that part I can agree with but I've never seen anything conclusive which demonstrates that racism is mainstream on the right or inseparable from conservative beliefs. Racism, as well as violence, is "abound" within left-leaning groups but you'll never hear me use words like majority, and believe me, I've seen a LOT. I think we have to look with bigger eyes than that and that a person has to be laser-focused strictly on the flaws and bad deeds of their oppenents to come to the conclusion that groups as large as Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats don't have positive characteristics or ideas to contribute, or that our opponents are mostly racist. We have serious problems for sure but right now I think we're in a state of functional dysfunction. In other words, there's chaos and a great deal of hate but we're keeping it together enough to press forward and make progress. If racism is what defined this country that wouldn't be the case, it's a part of our culture, sure, and it was an even larger part of our culture 100 years ago but it never defined us, it's been more like a thorn in our side.

Now, I will say that people are usually tribal in nature and that an unknown amount, perhaps most, have racist thoughts that can creep in but the title racist is better reserved for someone who is inseparable from a mindset that they are superior based on their skin color. Saying someone is a racist comes off as an all-inclusive title, but it appears much more common for people to simply have occasional racist thoughts which don't reflect in their actions.

How about this, on your end see if you make a specific claim that you can prove. If most conservatives are racist, prove it. If racism is what drives conservatism, prove that. I think you'd be able to show that it's a factor and that racism is present but that you're likely to miss the root cause. Conservatism isn't what drives racism, human nature in general often does and because conservates are human you'll be able to give examples but you'll have to leave out that fact that hate and racism is widespread to pin this primarily on the right. The Democrats have a very long history, steeped in racism and the details of that alone throw a huge wrench in many of the claims made by the left about how conservatives or conservative ideology is somehow tied at the hip with racism.


QUOTE
QUOTE(Droop)
WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?


You can call into question anything as far as I'm concerned, as to whether or not you shut down an argument depends both on how good/fair your argument is and how sensitive the other person may be.

QUOTE
So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.


In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Aug 3 2018, 05:31 PM
Post #46


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?

QUOTE
I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.



That this is even a question shows the disconnect. People are people, most people everywhere have the same sense of morality. Certainly people from the same culture do, as that's a large part of what defines the culture. We're all part of the same culture, so the assumption would be we all have the same general sense of morality. Our legal system, for example, is completely based on this fundamental assumption. Given that it IS a fundamental assumption...what is the basis for the question? Why change the assumption? This is why questioning morality, as opposed to say actions, gets very problematic, and almost always ends up missing the point. Whereas, if you stick with the assumption, and then seek to understand why one group may have a different approach to something assuming that they have the same general sense of morality...that's a completely different discussion.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Aug 3 2018, 05:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 4 2018, 09:58 PM
Post #47


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?


Right, it does work both ways, defining "modern conservative" would be equally important tongue.gif The approach I try to take when referring to large groups of people is to state up front that not everyone fit's perfectly into a category. Political labels like conservative or liberal can give a rough idea of the beliefs of those who identify with that label in some fashion but it's a tricky thing given how diverse people can be, that's especially true in America.

It's impossible to give justice to large groups of people with one or two words so if I need to identify a group of people who have common interest, I try to use the term that's the most reflective of who I'm trying to identify but stay open to their thoughts on the matter the best I can. On another note, that can get complicated in some situations because there are people who actually identify as animals like cats, wolfs, or even dragons and some think this is true literally, I'm not kidding. Those who identify as animals are called Otherkin. So what do you do in a situation where someone isn't what they say they are? That's another consideration.

One of the things I think of when I use a word like liberal is how much liberals have changed. There're often more adamant about gun restrictions now, actually government restrictions in a broader sense as well, they're often less prone to be supportive of concepts like free speech than they once were. Being supportive of individual liberties is actually in one of the definitions of the word liberal, but now conservatives are often as much about individual liberties as liberals are, actually they can be much more supportive of individual liberties than liberals depending on the topic. With that said, I'm more prone to say modern liberal given so much has changed. I've also heard the word progressive used a great deal to distinguish between classical liberals and those who have evolved in their interpretation of what it means to be a liberal.

It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.) That's definitely complicating our situation and making some people wary of getting involved, unfortunately. There are ways around this though, a strive for communication may not reach everyone but there are those who are willing will hear what you have to say and communicate. I'm also confident that there are those who are absorbing good points made by their opposition even if they don't outwardly admit it, because to some, that's admitting defeat.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Aug 6 2018, 04:02 AM
Post #48


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,353
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



One of the great strengths of real debate involves rules of not only behavior but of argumentation.

Real debate requires the definition of terms so that all sides (can easily be more than two) understand what they're talking about -- also the audience and especially the judges.

Real debate has judges who award or take away points, depending on the rules of argumentation. There's also some wiggle room for/against creative argumentation.

Since this site has moderators and not judges, real debate doesn't generally happen here, never has. So that leaves it up to participants regarding how it turns out, and gee, it often becomes like family fights. There should be no surprise when people get sick of it all and go do something else.

Still, there's worthwhile stuff that happens too. Maybe it's the times that has drawn people to Facebook and other sites that skew heavily this way or that and all points thereabout. Or maybe we're up to here with fighting for/against whatever. Another possibility is that it has become clear that no amount of argumentation will change minds that are already made up, so people have given up trying to influence folks through various strategies, some more clever than others, and usually the same kinds of tricks I remember my family using regularly.

Then there are the technically sound arguments, but those tend to get lengthy and dull. Real debate is live, with a living audience, and so elements of show biz are often used. That's where the observation that politics is show biz for people with radio faces comes from.

And these live debates use teams more often than not, so getting personal is not only bad argumentation, it's a bad performance, given the environment.

Which brings me to name-calling versus description. I might call you a low-life dirty hippie biker tokin' and pickin' your commie pinko folk music, and that would be calling names while defining a stereotype. Someone else might say I'm a hypocrite, since I pretty much do, or did, all that stuff myself, and that person would be describing me by what I say and do/did. One take is valid, the other isn't.

One take would lose at real debate, and the other would win.

So . . . out here in the Free World (in which one should Keep On Rockin'), what kind of debate is winning?

I'm hoping it's the valid kind but have to admit it's not nearly as entertaining and distracting. Maybe it's just a phase we're going through. The Terrible Two Thousands? Could also be a periodic thing in history where conditions turn insane quickly, a crazy eruption, then carry on from what's left.

We could all be stuck in a VR world too, but I think the Earth being flat has a better chance of turning out true.

This post has been edited by AuthorMusician: Aug 6 2018, 04:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Aug 10 2018, 02:21 PM
Post #49


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 4 2018, 03:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?



It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.)


Exactly! So...why not simply debate something on its content or merit, without involving stereotypes at all? At best, its a strawman, which is bad debate anyway. What 'group' someone is or isn't from is really irrelevant to whatever issue is being discussed. Never even really could be. Everyone is in a group of one. I, for example, don't know another single person who doesn't think differently than I do on something. Generally, they think differently than I do even on things we might agree on. So, thinking I think what anyone in a group thinks about anything is just almost never correct. Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think. Heck, even people who are close friends often don't know what I think. Certainly, somebody who has never met me doesn't know. Combine that with whatever follows 'you think...' is almost always a negative comment, its doubly bad. First, they are wrong on the surface, then they are further alluding negative connotations on top of the false assumption. As I said above, it quickly makes debate completely pointless.

This post has been edited by Hobbes: Aug 10 2018, 02:23 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Aug 12 2018, 08:07 AM
Post #50


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,232
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 10 2018, 10:21 AM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 4 2018, 03:58 PM) *
QUOTE(Hobbes @ Aug 3 2018, 01:31 PM) *
QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism


Here's the problem with these types of generalizations. What is 'modern conservatism'? I suspect defining it would prove problematic. Consider that conservatives themselves can't define it, and defining it is currently an ongoing topic amongst that group themselves. So, if you can't define the group, how do you allude generalizations to it, when you wouldn't even be able to identify who you're actually alluding those generalizations to?



It's complicated but I think ultimately people just need to acknowledge that not everybody fits into a box where they think exactly alike. Labels wouldn't be so bad if people didn't forget that there are people behind them, but often in debates these days people are prone to taking the following approach... (You're a conservative or liberal so I'll group you together with the worst that your constituency has to offer.)


Exactly! So...why not simply debate something on its content or merit, without involving stereotypes at all? At best, its a strawman, which is bad debate anyway. What 'group' someone is or isn't from is really irrelevant to whatever issue is being discussed. Never even really could be. Everyone is in a group of one. I, for example, don't know another single person who doesn't think differently than I do on something. Generally, they think differently than I do even on things we might agree on. So, thinking I think what anyone in a group thinks about anything is just almost never correct. Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think. Heck, even people who are close friends often don't know what I think. Certainly, somebody who has never met me doesn't know. Combine that with whatever follows 'you think...' is almost always a negative comment, its doubly bad. First, they are wrong on the surface, then they are further alluding negative connotations on top of the false assumption. As I said above, it quickly makes debate completely pointless.


I see your point, there's certainly a risk of strawman arguments or miscommunication when using labels like conservative or liberal at all, many other types of labels as well. The way I look at it is that usually depends on the intent of the one making the argument, whether or not they're willing to get detailed, and whether or not they're receptive to any feedback they're getting. I'm willing to use those types of words because I feel there needs to be a way to identify and address those with roughly the same common interest, in certain situations.

There are practical uses for being able to identify those with roughly similar political interest. For example, many states set it up to where a Republican can't vote for a Democrat or vice versa during the primaries. A member of the opposing political party could be less likely to understand the candidates and more likely to cast a vote with ill intent, perhaps by voting for the candidate they feel would be less likely to win a general election. Again, that possibility wouldn't apply to every person who wants to vote in an opposing parties primaries, in fact, you could even say someone could simply be changing their mind about what party they support, so here again, there are risk involved with a political label. What we're really talking about are the varying statistical odds between the two groups. Republicans are more likely to want the best for the Republican party and vice versa, it just doesn't apply across the board.

In a debate, I think there's a difference between saying something like....

"Democrats don't support a border wall so you wouldn't know anything about what the benefits would be"

and

"Democrats less frequently support a border wall, is that where you stand?"

In the second scenario, you still have to be willing to not jump to conclusions but intent and willingness to communicate are often what makes the difference in debates. I definitely understand where you're coming from, too many people are misusing common political terms, just as they misuse words like black or white, but I think it has more to do with the individuals who are misusing those the words rather than the words alone.

QUOTE
Which is why when, in a debate, somebody says 'you think....', they are almost always wrong. They are stating what they think some group thinks (and are often even wrong on that) but unless they possess some supernatural clairvoyance, they really have no idea what I think.


Agreed, I think that's a bad approach unless, perhaps, the other person has already told you what they think. Sometimes I'll say something to the effect of, "Some Christians think that if you don't accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven" because I've heard Christians say that before, but you certainly don't want to state something like that as an absolute for an entire group, or take it to the level of stating that as a fact about someone who's a Christian if they haven't been clear on it. My girlfriend is Christain and doesn't believe it's that simple so judging too fast is never a good thing.

This post has been edited by net2007: Aug 12 2018, 08:28 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hobbes
post Aug 13 2018, 05:31 PM
Post #51


Group Icon

**********
No More Mr. Nice Guy!

Group: Committee Members
Posts: 5,312
Member No.: 1,155
Joined: September-8-03

From: Dallas, TX
Gender: Male
Politics: Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 12 2018, 02:07 AM) *
In a debate, I think there's a difference between saying something like....

"Democrats don't support a border wall so you wouldn't know anything about what the benefits would be"

and

"Democrats less frequently support a border wall, is that where you stand?"


Or even when like the first one, except 'Democrat' is replaced with 'you', even though you haven't actually indicated your position on that issue at all.

the second one wouldn't necessarily need the first part qualified 'Democrats less frequently' could still be 'Demoncrats don't'...so long as the follow on question around that person's position is asked. Otherwise one is inferring their position, and usually then expounding on it, when it may well be a false assumption to start with.

QUOTE
In the second scenario, you still have to be willing to not jump to conclusions but intent and willingness to communicate are often what makes the difference in debates.


Agree, but good luck with that. Leaping to conclusions is what the vast majority of online discussion is.

QUOTE
I definitely understand where you're coming from, too many people are misusing common political terms, just as they misuse words like black or white, but I think it has more to do with the individuals who are misusing those the words rather than the words alone.


Misusing them is almost inherent. Go back to 'modern conservatism'. Does ANYONE really know what that means? I doubt it. I suspect if you asked 10 experts on it, you'd get 10 different answers.


QUOTE
Agreed, I think that's a bad approach unless, perhaps, the other person has already told you what they think. Sometimes I'll say something to the effect of, "Some Christians think that if you don't accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven" because I've heard Christians say that before, but you certainly don't want to state something like that as an absolute for an entire group, or take it to the level of stating that as a fact about someone who's a Christian if they haven't been clear on it. My girlfriend is Christain and doesn't believe it's that simple so judging too fast is never a good thing.


Exactly. Particularly if you're not even sure if the person is actually Christian.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Aug 14 2018, 06:33 PM
Post #52


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Net2007)
In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.
w00t.gif Real world? Do you know the difference between the real world and you perception of the "real world"?

QUOTE(Hobbes)
That this is even a question shows the disconnect. People are people, most people everywhere have the same sense of morality. Certainly people from the same culture do, as that's a large part of what defines the culture. We're all part of the same culture, so the assumption would be we all have the same general sense of morality. Our legal system, for example, is completely based on this fundamental assumption. Given that it IS a fundamental assumption...what is the basis for the question? Why change the assumption? This is why questioning morality, as opposed to say actions, gets very problematic, and almost always ends up missing the point. Whereas, if you stick with the assumption, and then seek to understand why one group may have a different approach to something assuming that they have the same general sense of morality...that's a completely different discussion.
There is no disconnect for me. And I think you are right that most humans have the same morality, regardless of culture, what differs is our scope, our application, and most importantly our ability to justify our actions to excuse a lapse in those very similar morals we hold.

The point of the questions was simple to me. The first represented incivility. The second represented economic damage. The third represents damage to human life. As a debater, liberal to conservative, I have learned over the years of debating conservatives you just CAN'T measure a person's ability to justify. Take a minute to understand what that word "justify" means.

And while you are at it think about what we are willing to justify.

So the question just goes to show an amoral escalation... without justification. The whole point is to make scenario where we can all agree, because no one is trying to say "Well, this is why I think its ok" Right simple. I want to scream it at you all sometimes. Taking human life... really bad, really really bad.. causing economic oppression, really bad... incivility, bad.

Hobbes you continue to discuss these assumption being made. There are assumptions being made, I admit, but not unjust ones. Its is fair for me to assume you as a conservative support conservative positions on certain issues. Will I always be accurate, absolutely not. But it is appropriate to think that a conservative holds the conservative position on a certain subject, until they say other wise. Same goes for you Net. I've had this discussion with you before. Now that being said morality of positions are what is being judged, and you are being judged because it is assumed that a conservative holds conservative positions.

Now, I don't think its relevant to get liberal vs conservative positions for this debate of moving ahead, but I would like you all to think on something. The positions\viewpoints we hold can be very reflective of our morality. Can our viewpoints explain the totality of our morality. I don't think so. But, lets say, I walked into work after the Charleston massacre and someone talked about how it was a good thing for Dylan Roof to shoot up the church. Let's say he had a series of justifications. That position holds moral weight, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that he does not have a right to that position. It doesn't mean on other things, like being polite to coworkers, taking care of his family, being a great neighbor, etc he sucks at. That position is an immoral position by MY morality and thus there is going to be some judgment I am inherently going to make on his morality.

So lets follow up that understanding and apply it to the scenario. When we see actions that cause death and bodily harm to human beings, domestic or foreign, if our morality is similar we should be equally offended. We shouldn't support it. If we see position that causes economic destruction on a people, foreign or domestic, if our morality is similar we should be equally offended. If we see a position that promotes incivility, foreign or domestic, if our morality is similar we should be equally offended.

More importantly shouldn't our "scale of morality" tilt "heavier" when there is destruction to human life vs economic oppression vs ... incivility. Well as we can see in the scenario, it does!! However, in the real world we have that thing humans are uniquely qualified to do. We can JUSTIFY! So we come back again to this great difference between left and right thinking individuals. While every human has the ability to justify and does justify, we differ in our application and we differ in our scope to justify. Should I expand on that, maybe not, not for this debate. I'm just trying to offer you all some perspective.

Net2007 you go on and on about how uncivil the liberals, modern liberals, progressives, etc, even if I grant you that there is mass liberal support for this behavior that you cherry pick out to show as "evidence" (which I don't), but even if I agreed for the sake of moving the argument along, how does that match up against the policies, domestic and globally, overwhelmingly supported by conservatives that cause economic stresses on human beings. How does that stack up to the policies, domestic and global, that causes thousands, tens of thousands, of mutilations and deaths.




But Hobbes, Net, Looms, this again takes back to the scenario I presented. I'm not going to add anything to the scenario because I want it to be as unconditioned as possible, because as we add in conditioning statements our differing capabilities to justify will start kicking in.

So I HOPE you all can get the importance of us having different capabilities to justify and what we are willing to justify and what that means. What does it mean? It means you can be aware that an action took place that caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people and be fine with that outcome, someone else may find that act morally reprehensible. In fact, you could have less moral outrage at the deaths of dozens of unarmed HUMAN BEINGS and be morally outraged at the actions of a football athlete that protests the deaths of these unarmed HUMAN BEINGS if you are person that morally justifies the homicide of those particular HUMAN BEINGS and find protest of sitting or kneeling at the flag of your country morally reprehensible. To your point Hobbes , do I know specifically your stance on every police killing in the US? Nope. Do I know your stance on NFL players protest. Nope. Would your individual stance change the general support amongst conservatives who find many unarmed homicide justifiable or the general intolerance of conservatives when it came to the NFL protest? No it wouldn't. I say this because, when we discuss an issue I can't know in a country of #)) plus million what each individual thinks on each specific issue, nor does it matter. What matter is if there is enough public support out there to allow a position to "politically" exist. And if I find that a particular position finds great acceptance in one political group over another and you subscribe to that group, its absolutely fair to assume you agree. You may not agree, and can correct me, but stop taking offense. I'm arguing a position, and I'm arguing the morality of a position and YES to a degree the morality of people that support a position, because these positions do not exist in vacuums... millions of human beings must subscribe to them.

Side note Net. I saw this clip and thought of you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8_eI-stGQc

Reason I thought this was good is because the lady was clearly, "rude". But what's incivility compared to war? What's incivility compared to mass incarceration? What's incivility compared to sanctions and embargos that cause mass poverty? etc etc. I'm not saying civility isn't important, just that on the totem pole of morality, it's got to be pretty low. I mean you can the most polite person to walk the Earth but if you advocate for the death of hundrends of thousands of HUMAN BEINGS what does that make you? A courteous homicidal (fill in the blank)?

As to racism, let just say this, I could try to convince you. As you say, you deal with facts. The statistics of inferiority in Black and Brown are out there. Now I've proposed to you either... there is an innate inferiority or there is systemic social structuring causing the inferiority. You believe there is possible some other... reason to explain. OK. I'll give you a personal story to explain how I see you.

Years ago I told this story on ad.gif I'll make it short. Years ago I was denied entry into a night club. The reason why is I had a SeanJohn shirt on. Now, this shirt was a button up collar shirt. The guy points me to the policy on the door. Rocawear, FUBU, SeanJon, South Pole, Baby Phat, Just a crap load of clothing brands commonly worn by Blacks and Browns. Dress codes is nothing new in a nightclub. They are used to generate a particular crowd in the club. I ask for the manager. I had a cop behind me and I still told the bouncer and the manager "this is some racist bullsh.." The manager responded as if HE...HE was the person offended because I was accusing him of racism. "I'm not racist and neither is my policy, because if a White guy comes in here and has any of these clothes on he doesn't get in and if you go home and change your clothes you could get in."

That's how conservative racism works Net. Its built into systems and that disproportionately effect disenfranchised communities. IN the micro it worked just like the owner wanted it to work. He figured how do I get less Blacks in his establishment without being overtly racist. He had the effect he wanted. Now Net the facts about racism are out there. The statistics are out there. So what debate could we have on racism, other than if you want to call it racism or not? How could I possibly prove something that is hidden in plain sight?

My return question is how do you and other conservatives on this board support systems that you see disproportionately effect communities based on racial lines, but still think it wrong for people from that community to believe you support racism.

Back to my real life tale, which I admit is small fries in the grand scheme of things... Am I as a Black person supposed to be so na´ve as to believe that this man just happen to list clothing brands that are predominately worn by minority groups? Am I to believe that race had no part in the selection of brands of clothing. EVEN if I believed that the allowing or disallowing of people in the club was strictly enforced REGARDLESS of race. Its not possible for me to see the creation of such policy, see the effects of the policy, and not think that the purpose was based on racist philosophy.

Same goes for many conservative supported policies. Its hard for me to phantom some one seeing the formation and reasoning of these policies, see the effects of these policies, but deny any racist intent. That being said I admit as said to Hobbes its also hard to distinguish racism, classism, and nationalism. Bottom line while I admit I may inaccurately call someone a racist when really they are just being a nationalist, I'm good with that because nationalism, racism, classism are all philosophies steeped in supremacist ideals and not humanist ideals.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Trouble
post Yesterday, 06:08 AM
Post #53


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 740
Member No.: 1,142
Joined: September-6-03

From: Regina, Sk. Canada
Gender: Male
Politics: Moderate
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(net2007 @ Aug 2 2018, 12:52 AM) *
Droop

QUOTE
As always Net no worries to your delays, take your time.

QUOTE
To start this, I want to see where you're coming from, I do on some of what you're saying but can't help but think there's a part of the story you're missing or not considering. I understand that some of what you say applies to the right, though I'd definitely differ with you on the amount of inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals are on the right. I don't think those types represent a tiny problem that we don't need to be concerned about but the worst ones aren't near as mainstream as modern liberals sometimes let on, (I can explain the phrase modern liberal if you want, it's pretty straightforward).
No need to define the label of modern liberal, because it would only be an opinion and I've read enough from you to pretty much understand.

That being said I think when you sum "inconsiderate, racist, or otherwise counterproductive individuals" together like you did, it distracts from my point. I don't consider people on the right to counterproductive, unless its counter productive to certain ideals like equality. I don't think the right is generally, anymore "inconsiderate" (although that could change if we were discussing a specific subject). I do think that racism is abound in modern conservatism and historic for that matter, but the mask its hidden behind allows for all the plausible deniability you could hope for.


I'm willing to debate just the racism aspect of it. You're saying racism is abound in modern conservatism, that part I can agree with but I've never seen anything conclusive which demonstrates that racism is mainstream on the right or inseparable from conservative beliefs. Racism, as well as violence, is "abound" within left-leaning groups but you'll never hear me use words like majority, and believe me, I've seen a LOT. I think we have to look with bigger eyes than that and that a person has to be laser-focused strictly on the flaws and bad deeds of their oppenents to come to the conclusion that groups as large as Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats don't have positive characteristics or ideas to contribute, or that our opponents are mostly racist. We have serious problems for sure but right now I think we're in a state of functional dysfunction. In other words, there's chaos and a great deal of hate but we're keeping it together enough to press forward and make progress. If racism is what defined this country that wouldn't be the case, it's a part of our culture, sure, and it was an even larger part of our culture 100 years ago but it never defined us, it's been more like a thorn in our side.

Now, I will say that people are usually tribal in nature and that an unknown amount, perhaps most, have racist thoughts that can creep in but the title racist is better reserved for someone who is inseparable from a mindset that they are superior based on their skin color. Saying someone is a racist comes off as an all-inclusive title, but it appears much more common for people to simply have occasional racist thoughts which don't reflect in their actions.

How about this, on your end see if you make a specific claim that you can prove. If most conservatives are racist, prove it. If racism is what drives conservatism, prove that. I think you'd be able to show that it's a factor and that racism is present but that you're likely to miss the root cause. Conservatism isn't what drives racism, human nature in general often does and because conservates are human you'll be able to give examples but you'll have to leave out that fact that hate and racism is widespread to pin this primarily on the right. The Democrats have a very long history, steeped in racism and the details of that alone throw a huge wrench in many of the claims made by the left about how conservatives or conservative ideology is somehow tied at the hip with racism.


QUOTE
QUOTE(Droop)
WHEN do I get to judge the morality of your beliefs and make argument for or against it? Lately I feel as though conservatives are hmmmm "hiding" behind this statement of "it's a political belief". Just listen to Fox or just listen to yourselves. Its as if you feel your political beliefs hold NO MORAL weight.
When do I get to call into the question the morality of beliefs, without (I might add) shutting down debate?


You can call into question anything as far as I'm concerned, as to whether or not you shut down an argument depends both on how good/fair your argument is and how sensitive the other person may be.

QUOTE
So let me pose a completely hypothetical scenario to you.

2 individual are driving in their respective vehicles down a highway. Driver A cuts off Driver B so close that it causes Driver B to swerve and almost wreck. Driver B recovers and speeds to meet Driver A who has stopped at a traffic light. Lets say 1 of the following 3 events happen.

1. Driver B pulls up and flips off driver A and calls him some really bad names laced in profanity.

2. Driver B pulls in front of driver A jumps out the car with a bat and starts physically destroying the car.

3. Driver B pulls beside driver A, reaches into the glove box, grabs a gun and starts shooting into the car, hitting drive B.

Now, my question to you is two-fold.

1. Do you believe that the responses of Driver B all have an equivalent moral weight or do you think behavior in each scenario becomes more immoral?

2. Do you believe, in your opinion, that most conservatives think how you do given this scenario.

I'm trying to honestly gauge, stripped of our differing abilities to justify, do you as a conservative and I as a liberal hold similar ideas of morality.


In the past, I haven't often gone for your multiple choice questions because in some circumstances you've left out details in the questions or left out alternative answers that I'd sooner go for. This type of thing can also narrow the scope of more complicated political topics, containing many variables, down to something simplistic that may or may not translate well to a broader discussion. I'm not saying this because I'm concerned that you could potentially demonstrate something nasty about conservatives with this but I am quite fond of accuracy. I'll give this a try though to see where you're going to go.

To answer your question, in the context of the situation you presented in the question itself, I'd find it unnecessary and unwise to respond with any of the retaliatory responses you laid out for driver B. As for whether or not any of the responses are morally equivalent to cutting off a car and almost causing it to wreck, the third response is not morally equivalent, at least not according to my morals. I believe most people, including conservatives, would agree that responding by speeding up and shooting the other car and driver is not right or morally equivalent. I feel safe saying that for the second response as well, speeding up to catch the other car so you can smash it up with a baseball bat would also be considered worse than what driver A. did in my eyes.

As for responding by flipping off driver A and calling him some really bad names laced in profanity, it still doesn't strike me a morally equivalent although it's closer. How close depends on whether or not driver A. knew they were cutting the other driver off too close and had already considered they could cause him to wreck but simply didn't care. In that situation, both drivers would have done something that made them a danger to others on the road and done so intentionally with knowledge of the consequences, although the aspect of revenge and the verbal offense would still be something additional on the part of driver B in that scenario.

How that hypothetical translates into a real-world political situation depends on a number of things.



I have issues with untangling the Gordian knot that is morality when for the past couple of years the concept has become increasingly fluid. The point of propaganda is to frustrate discussions with another group. Do you think such a tactic is in use today? If so is it even sane to try? I would argue that morality beyond the individual level has become so twisted at the state level it is affecting the little guy down down to a level he does not even realize. Therefore frank discussions involving morality have to be first untangled before proceeding. How that is done requires a heavy dose of philosophy and the patience of a Saint.

For example, have you noted the huge differences in content from serious online articles and the what passes for television? It is stark. It is sobering and it is sad. If one comes to the conclusion that television is simply an indignation machine should I be concerned when someone gets all hot and bothered when they saw something taken out of context on television? It is like two different stories are wrapped together in one reality. The guiding principles which we are debating as rock solid principles are not static. I think it is a brilliant Jedi Mind trick that people connect with a distant incarnation of a current political party and pretend it is still current, like wearing pantaloons at the mall. I am guessing this is where you were going Net.

When was the last time the Conservative party accepted a smaller military as part of a smaller government? Answer, not recently. Instead lip service libertarianism found a place inside the party and is only used for large infrastructure projects where there is human price to be paid. Or said another way, to avoid talking about the social and environmental costs associated with any given mega project, or in a manner the works against new anti trust ideas the spectre of the lone business person is brought forth.

A decade ago the banks went into free fall because of really questionable mortgages. Regular injections of money are now necessary to keep the credit cycle going because someone in the 80s realized you could grow the economy quickly on credit. The Democratic party realized that after the dot com bubble there wasn't much manufacturing anymore. Representing trade unions was a dwindling demographic. On Bubba's advice of the it's the economy silly, the party moved their focus from labour unions to wedge issues and unrestricted immigration (aka Chinese malinvestment in housing bubbles), At no time can any of the limited immigration stances shared by both parties 60 years ago be applied today without one getting labeled. This was a Machiavelli inspired move because new citizens overwhelmingly vote democratic. Attacking the party is no longer useful when the corruption is systemic.

Morality has taken on the same meaningless morphology as terrorism. Morality has been used heavily by media as the cudgel to pigeon hole and deplatform any of the more traditional stances whether the optics deem them conservative or liberal. This is intentional.

You could debate in terms of civility or incivility but I came to the conclusion long ago it would be more accurate to describe any given political issue in terms of sincerity. It can vary depending on whom you talk to and should you talk to a paid operative, aka politician, the chance of insincerity rises. This is important because in insincere situations which is 99% of big media, the point of the discussion is to slander and evoke an emotional response. At that point the discussion isn't about facts it is about which fabrications will or will not stick. Do you get upset at the fabrications, or do you get upset with whomever uttered them? Or do you get upset by those who did not get upset? You see indignation is a merry go round.

Since I'm neither a saint nor a philosopher I'll just stick to the policy points, it is simpler that way.

This post has been edited by Trouble: Yesterday, 06:12 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Yesterday, 07:38 AM
Post #54


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,816
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(trouble)
Since I'm neither a saint nor a philosopher I'll just stick to the policy points, it is simpler that way.
To what end? If morality is not what guides you to the policy points you want to fight for or against?

I get what you are saying in all this. Maybe humanity isn't... anything. A part of me understands this. Just highly intelligent sentient beings, but really no different then a domesticated animal. But I keep that part of me small and quiet, because then all feels futile.

QUOTE
I would argue that morality beyond the individual level has become so twisted at the state level it is affecting the little guy down down to a level he does not even realize.
Morality isn't twisted above the individual level, it doesn't exist. But getting people to see that is difficult. Morality can only be conceptualized by sentient beings of higher reason, precisely because we made it up.

Basic, I believe its wrong to kill other humans. My morality, but shared by most of the world. However, I know that there are instances where the situation requires me to kill. Now influential people use these competing understandings to their benefit. This is what causes the warp in our morality collectively. At levels higher than the individual, like the State, justifications for necessity are created. Some human beings buy into the justification and some don't. So those that do not see the necessity are still working with very similar morality as those that don't. But with out necessity, that person has to see the killing as immoral. And the person that has allowed themselves to be influenced by the justification still see killing as wrong, but now they feel justified.

QUOTE
Morality has taken on the same meaningless morphology as terrorism.
I disagree. Terrorism never meant anything... ever. Morality still has the same meaning and it is the singular concept that prevents us from being mere animals. (yes, I admit thinking we are more than mere animals may be delusional).

QUOTE
This is important because in insincere situations which is 99% of big media, the point of the discussion is to slander and evoke an emotional response.
Again, to what end? Why? I agree 100% and I been in enough media debates to know... the merry go round goes around and around and they never can seem to achieve the "why". The media behaves this way whether it the Democrats or Republicans in power. I say that and some one will come out and start arguing how "No they do it to Republicans more" it will go off the rails, but they will never look at the why. People won't want to look at power, what it is, how exists, why it exists, and who really has it. Why does the media do this? "Duh they want rating!" but why?










Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: August 17th, 2018 - 09:02 AM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.