President Trump

[wap]

There's nothing that says you can't be rich and still be on the side of the moral high ground. Examples: FDR, JFK, RFK, WAP, etc.

Whose morals? From what culture? From what time period?

For one it may be immoral to receive handouts (i.e. the one who takes offense to being offered help... as if they couldn't do it on their own). For another it may be immoral not to give surplus back to needy. Who's morals are right?

I understand your point, and it has merit, but I think we all know what we mean within the framework of the current discussion of ripping children from their parents for no good reason. Maybe moral isn't the right word for it. What would you suggest instead?

[dubshow]

Good discussion on borders/illegals.

Therefore, the practical side of me sees borders as necessary and if a border exists then it is reasonable to expect some form of consequence for violating that border. Else the border is essentially useless.

So now we have this great debate over the handling of the consequences for trying to bypass the border in this country. Frankly, I don't see a solution that would appease everyone.

Exactly.

I love the people that over generalize and go way back to european aggressor "immigrants".

Yes. The entire US population should vacate now. we all have reasonably established boarders. That's the game now. The game has evolved over the years. To maintain some basic ideal of our society we have to play by the rules. We just will never agree on the rules.

[Thedude]

Whose morals? From what culture? From what time period?

For one it may be immoral to receive handouts (i.e. the one who takes offense to being offered help... as if they couldn't do it on their own). For another it may be immoral not to give surplus back to needy. Who's morals are right?

I understand your point, and it has merit, but I think we all know what we mean within the framework of the current discussion of ripping children from their parents for no good reason. Maybe moral isn't the right word for it. What would you suggest instead?

If morals are the basis for anything then you have to decide who's morals matter and this cannot be done without blatant systemic discrimination. No way around it. Just the way it is.

Take usury, for example, if one day this nation had a muslim majority and majority morals matter most... then in a day the entire credit market would collapse because interest could no longer be charged by lenders... because it is immoral.

Or even something like same sex marriage... that will go in and out of legality based on what view is more popular that day. What a rollercoaster that would be. Hell, you see it right now at the top levels of government with Kennedy stepping down... now RvW is at risk. Bringing morals into play with governing only works IF... big IF... everyone has the same exact morals. Otherwise mayhem and blood shed will be happening... and I do predict a certain amount of that if RvW get's overturned... it'll be insane.

Regarding family separations... I feel for them in more ways than one... but would not go as far as to say it is for no good reason. I wouldn't say it's for good reasons either... but the situation happened because choices were made. Risks were taken. If not in this administration, for sure the next will curtail this practice so it is a good thing that it's being talked about but... let's be honest... the biggest reason it's being talked about is because the media sees this as a weapon against the enemy in chief.

[Melon]

[dubshow]

[Desertbreh]

YOU ARE THE FUCKING 1% [user not found]... and you still pay a drop in the bucket of tax burden. The .01%? They front our insane spending. They also own the companies which own the .gov policy.



Man, you guys just don't have a grasp on how many poor people we have. didn't have any clue he was in the top 10% of earners. I am solidly in the 16% of earners... and I feel pretty fucking poor in contrast. I see no reason to put his mechanical head on a spike.

Your favorite saying [user not found], "I am already rich, I just have to find a way to stay rich" goes in direct counter-logic to the group you feel you "morally" align with and then lump politics with "morals". The current people that are crying about inequality and bemoaning Trump are the same people that would put your head on a rainbow spike.

I keep a hard line in between the role of "morals" and politics. "The road to hell is paved with good intention"

There's nothing that says you can't be rich and still be on the side of the moral high ground. Examples: FDR, JFK, RFK, WAP, etc.

[wap]

I understand your point, and it has merit, but I think we all know what we mean within the framework of the current discussion of ripping children from their parents for no good reason. Maybe moral isn't the right word for it. What would you suggest instead?

If morals are the basis for anything then you have to decide who's morals matter and this cannot be done without blatant systemic discrimination. No way around it. Just the way it is.

Take usury, for example, if one day this nation had a muslim majority and majority morals matter most... then in a day the entire credit market would collapse because interest could no longer be charged by lenders... because it is immoral.

Or even something like same sex marriage... that will go in and out of legality based on what view is more popular that day. What a rollercoaster that would be. Hell, you see it right now at the top levels of government with Kennedy stepping down... now RvW is at risk. Bringing morals into play with governing only works IF... big IF... everyone has the same exact morals. Otherwise mayhem and blood shed will be happening... and I do predict a certain amount of that if RvW get's overturned... it'll be insane.

Regarding family separations... I feel for them in more ways than one... but would not go as far as to say it is for no good reason. I wouldn't say it's for good reasons either... but the situation happened because choices were made. Risks were taken. If not in this administration, for sure the next will curtail this practice so it is a good thing that it's being talked about but... let's be honest... the biggest reason it's being talked about is because the media sees this as a weapon against the enemy in chief.

Again, I understand your point. What word would you suggest we use instead?

[wap]

There's nothing that says you can't be rich and still be on the side of the moral high ground. Examples: FDR, JFK, RFK, WAP, etc.

Somebody noticed.

[Thedude]

Again, I understand your point. What word would you suggest we use instead?

I just wouldn't even talk about "moral high ground" at all in political context. It's fine to talk about in family or church. In political context, it's meaningless if one person's moral high ground is another person's evil.

[dubshow]

Somebody noticed.

I noticed. I just took it as fact. You are an elitist with "moral high ground".

[wap]

Again, I understand your point. What word would you suggest we use instead?

I just wouldn't even talk about "moral high ground" at all in political context. It's fine to talk about in family or church. In political context, it's meaningless if one person's moral high ground is another person's evil.

I've acknowledged your point twice but I'll ask a third time. What word should I use instead? I won't say moral high ground. What should I say? Additionally, what word should use instead? He spoke of the morality of this tragedy several times today. Help him, too.

[wap]

Somebody noticed.

I noticed. I just took it as fact. You are an elitist with "moral high ground".

I'm an elitist.

[Thedude]

I just wouldn't even talk about "moral high ground" at all in political context. It's fine to talk about in family or church. In political context, it's meaningless if one person's moral high ground is another person's evil.

I've acknowledged your point twice but I'll ask a third time. What word should I use instead? I won't say moral high ground. What should I say? Additionally, what word should use instead? He spoke of the morality of this tragedy several times today. Help him, too.

Replacing a word with another that means the same thing doesn't really fix the issue

[Desertbreh]

Somebody noticed.

[KYGTIGuy]

I've acknowledged your point twice but I'll ask a third time. What word should I use instead? I won't say moral high ground. What should I say? Additionally, what word should use instead? He spoke of the morality of this tragedy several times today. Help him, too.

Replacing a word with another that means the same thing doesn't really fix the issue

What's the issue?

[Thedude]

Replacing a word with another that means the same thing doesn't really fix the issue

What's the issue?

Moral's role in governance (edit) of a free society.

[dubshow]

I've acknowledged your point twice but I'll ask a third time. What word should I use instead? I won't say moral high ground. What should I say? Additionally, what word should use instead? He spoke of the morality of this tragedy several times today. Help him, too.

Replacing a word with another that means the same thing doesn't really fix the issue

so you can't agree that there is a universally accepted version of "good" morals? :interesting:

Like a handshake is universally accepted as a positive, but in one culture a shake with the wrong hand is an insult.

[KYGTIGuy]

What's the issue?

Moral's role in governance (edit) of a free society.

No issue to solve then. It's a fun little exercises but in the end it's meaningless to reality.

The reality is that kids being separated from their parents is harmful and morally wrong.

[dubshow]

What's the issue?

Moral's role in governance (edit) of a free society.

I've very intrigued with your view that "morals" can't be objective and universally defined.

I do agree that "morals" in western society can be subjective and tend to be tied to a religious interpretation. If you remove that from governing, what is the role of government? Protect liberties or give handouts?

[wap]

Moral's role in governance (edit) of a free society.

No issue to solve then. It's a fun little exercises but in the end it's meaningless to reality.

The reality is that kids being separated from their parents is harmful and morally wrong.

Bottom line.
Taking out the word moral to un- Mr. The Dude.

[Thedude]

Replacing a word with another that means the same thing doesn't really fix the issue

so you can't agree that there is a universally accepted version of "good" morals? :interesting:

Like a handshake is universally accepted as a positive, but in one culture a shake with the wrong hand is an insult.

Funny you mention that... I had an Indian Physics professor who spoke with a British accent who does not agree with the disgusting habit of westerners shaking hands haha

Correct. "Good morals"... not a chance. Certain accepted/unaccepted actions, yes... there is hope but grey area still exists. For example... if we can't all agree that punching someone in the face unprovoked is unacceptable then we are doomed.

If we as a society... as a world... valued creating well-being in individuals more than skilled intellect then there would be no need for morals.

[KYGTIGuy]

No issue to solve then. It's a fun little exercises but in the end it's meaningless to reality.

The reality is that kids being separated from their parents is harmful and morally wrong.

Bottom line.
Taking out the word moral to un- Mr. The Dude.

I enjoy and respect his love of philosophy. It's a worthwhile endeavour but it comes off as detached on this particular discussion.

Did I walk through the door or did the door and everything I see shift and move around me giving me the perception that I moved through the door? Either way, I'm in the kitchen and there is a kid in a cage by the sink.

[Thedude]

No issue to solve then. It's a fun little exercises but in the end it's meaningless to reality.

The reality is that kids being separated from their parents is harmful and morally wrong.

Bottom line.
Taking out the word moral to un- Mr. The Dude.

Harm is objective. Morals can be anything.

Morals come down to what you think is right or wrong. Right or wrong can spun in any way and it has throughout history. The man who straps a bomb to his chest believes he is doing right. And he is so genuine about it that he'd give up his life for it. Too bad for him he doesn't realize that virgins will be useless once he leaves his body.

How about the guy who came to the US and performed an honor killing of his daughter who got pregnant out of wedlock. She was immoral and should be put to death. And by his morals he is right. By mine he is wrong. Luckily by US law he is wrong... but he sure wouldn't be wrong in his country. He'd probably have some sort of ceremoniously way of doing it with all his friends and a pile of stones and prepared dinner after.

Right/wrong... who the hell get's to define that? Religion does in no uncertain terms. Is it wrong to lie? What if I lied and told the man with a bomb strapped to his chest that all the people in the building which he is about to enter have left? It's wrong to lie, right? But should I have told him the truth so he could kill everyone in the building? Right/wrong is very situational and perspective dependent.

[wap]

Bottom line.
Taking out the word moral to un- Mr. The Dude.

I enjoy and respect his love of philosophy. It's a worthwhile endeavour but it comes off as detached on this particular discussion.

Did I walk through the door or did the door and everything I see shift and move around me giving me the perception that I moved through the door? Either way, I'm in the kitchen and there is a kid in a cage by the sink.

Totally.

[Thedude]

I enjoy and respect his love of philosophy. It's a worthwhile endeavour but it comes off as detached on this particular discussion.

Did I walk through the door or did the door and everything I see shift and move around me giving me the perception that I moved through the door? Either way, I'm in the kitchen and there is a kid in a cage by the sink.

Totally.

Hey... I'm just answering questions, amigo