The Democrat Primary Race Is Filling Up

[jamil]

As usual it gets mired down in semantic minutiae of the meaning of is.

No. I think it's pretty straightforward.

 

[nonobaddog]

No. I think it's pretty straightforward.

I am happy for that, but what is pretty straightforward, the meaning of morality or the derailed discussion?

 

[jamil]

I am happy for that, but what is pretty straightforward, the meaning of morality or the derailed discussion?

The meaning and origins of morality. As far as the derailed discussion, I was glad to talk about something other than coronavirus, and, there wasn’t any other discussion going on in this thread. I don’t see a problem with it.

 

[BugI02]

Alpo - I tend to agree with your approach. Best to wait and see who the candidates are and what the situation is. I would only add one point of observation to your thoughts on Trump and the Keynesian redistribution: I have not seen one Democrat who is griping and wishing it was smaller. There may be a Blue Dog somewhere who is - but I haven't heard it. I've seen a TON of Democrats griping and wishing it was larger. And I've seen a lot of Republicans who wanted it smaller - but had to be forced to toe the party line.

Agreed, but that doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy. Kind of like arguing on the bridge of the Titanic for a course change in order to hit a smaller iceberg. I do believe something needs to be done to bridge the financial gulf of the shutdown for business to be able to pick up the thread and get the economy rolling again, and I'm glad there are some strings attached to the aid that business may find onerous - if they don't like it and can survive without gov't swill then fine, they should go that route anyway. I just wish we were doing this from a position of strength rather than from the huge deficit hole we are already in, and I fear if we successfully thread the needle there will be little or no call for fiscal discipline in the wake of this crisis to pay down debt and get ready for any subsequent one

 

[nonobaddog]

The meaning and origins of morality. As far as the derailed discussion, I was glad to talk about something other than coronavirus, and, there wasn’t any other discussion going on in this thread. I don’t see a problem with it.

There was the discussion of the morality of voting for immoral officials which then devolved into what is morality.

 

[BugI02]

There was the discussion of the morality of voting for immoral officials which then devolved into what is morality.

Don't you need to define morality before you can conclude that the people voting for someone you don't like are voting for an immoral official?

To my mind, currently morality has to develop organically. The attempt to impose standards that too many people question or disagree with is why former morality standards are left by the wayside. It is why protestant christian religion lost its grip on the yout' of America. Unfortunately, that organic development of what passes for morality is indeed what injects relativism into equation and why it is easier to get people to adopt a morality that shuns killing baby seals or sea turtles than one that shuns killing babies. When all morality is relative people will find 'moral' reasons to do what they already want to do anyway, which is why 'free love' (which, of course, isn't free) continues to be so popular and internally inconsistent ideas like intersectionality and inclusiveness can gain a foothold

 

[nonobaddog]

I get it. We can't talk about morality of anything, we must talk about the abstract meaning. Cool.

 

[Tombs]

That’s not at all accurate. I know “they” don’t play by the same rules. They is in quotes because it’s a subset of people that it applies to. You’re lumping together everyone into a convenient “them” package of your own version of deplorable. What you’re doing is no better than Hillary. And it’s not being hospitable to “them”. There are always different perspectives on a matter. If I always interpret everything from just one perspective, I don’t see the fullest picture. That you still think I’m trying to be hospitable is evidence that you don’t see it from my perspective, which means you have a limited understanding of what I’m really saying. It only makes sense to you if you interpret it that way.

And let’s keep it straight that I’m not talking about objective morals. We’re not talking about Nancy Pelosi’s objectively immoral behavior. We’re talking about the reasons people cote for people. And we’re talking about the subjective realm of morality.

So you berate me for my sense of morality being subjective, but your sense of morality is objective.

Okay pot.

Working to subvert the rights outlined in the constitution is objectively immoral, by the virtue of its abandonment of oath to the people they are serving.
This is why I refused to vote for Bush, and refused to vote for McCain, and refused to vote for Romney. These people all had a long history and track record of subversion of the rights of the people, and not minor subversion, but nation wide drastic loss of basic civil liberties.

Trump was at least a complete unknown. And the few measures he's taken that I disagree with are an ant hill compared to the likes of what someone like McCain has done. I also cut him a bit more slack than most due to a complete media assault against him that has never let up. If he had perfectly smooth sailing like most of these other folks, comparatively, I would not be cutting him the slack I do.

 

[jamil]

There was the discussion of the morality of voting for immoral officials which then devolved into what is morality.

Not really caring. You can use the scroll bar if the posts don’t meet your standards.

 

[jamil]

So you berate me for my sense of morality being subjective, but your sense of morality is objective.

Okay pot.

Working to subvert the rights outlined in the constitution is objectively immoral, by the virtue of its abandonment of oath to the people they are serving.
This is why I refused to vote for Bush, and refused to vote for McCain, and refused to vote for Romney. These people all had a long history and track record of subversion of the rights of the people, and not minor subversion, but nation wide drastic loss of basic civil liberties.

You’re saying I’m saying what I ain’t saying. I didn’t berate you. I’m telling you what I think you got wrong. Did you not do that with me?

You have your own ideas about moral voting. Fine. You go man. Godspeed. But no one is going to accept your moral judgements of them when they don’t share your worldview.

 

[Tombs]

You’re saying I’m saying what I ain’t saying. I didn’t berate you. I’m telling you what I think you got wrong. Did you not do that with me?

You have your own ideas about moral voting. Fine. You go man. Godspeed. But no one is going to accept your moral judgements of them when they don’t share your worldview.

There is no other metric for objective morality beyond the constitution and the exceptionally plain and clear language within it.

The constitution is only murky to people seeking to subvert it.

(Subjective in a global sense, but it is most certainly objective for citizens of this country)

 

[nonobaddog]

Not really caring. You can use the scroll bar if the posts don’t meet your standards.

No problem at all. I'll just avoid using that word and try to use words that don't need so much redefining.

 

[jamil]

No problem at all. I'll just avoid using that word and try to use words that don't need so much [STRIKE]redefining[/STRIKE] defining.

FIFY

 

[jamil]

There is no other metric for objective morality beyond the constitution and the exceptionally plain and clear language within it.

The constitution is only murky to people seeking to subvert it.

(Subjective in a global sense, but it is most certainly objective for citizens of this country)

The constitution doesn't establish metrics for any morality. It establishes the US government and its limitations. It doesn't say that people who vote for people you don't like are immoral. And that's my problem with that part of the conversation. I don't think it's absurd to say people are foolish for voting for people you don't like. It's absurd to call them immoral because, again, you're imposing your own subjective morality derived from your worldview on people who don't share your worldview.

 

[nonobaddog]

FIFY

Actually redefining is correct. The dictionary defines words in a global domain and anything done here is redefining words in this local domain that has no standing elsewhere.

 

[T.Lex]

Actually redefining is correct. The dictionary defines words in a global domain and anything done here is redefining words in this local domain that has no standing elsewhere.

Well...

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.

 

[nonobaddog]

Well...

Exactly.

 

[BugI02]

Actually redefining is correct. The dictionary defines words in a global domain and anything done here is redefining words in this local domain that has no standing elsewhere.

Diogenes, is that you?

 

[Mikey1911]

Diogenes, is that you?

If it is, there is no use for him to go to DC or to any state capital in search of an honest man (or woman).

 

[Mongo59]

I imagine Diogenes curled up in a corner somewhere mumbling to himself, "happy place, happy place..."