- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Starting in the early 90's, but particularly growing under Clinton, the American democratic party underwent a deliberate transformation to shed all ethics and integrity. Essentially, "right" is defined as that which serves the party, "wrong" is that which harms or goes against the party.
I view the more partisan democrats as essentially without ethics, without a code to guide moral choices.
Immoral: things that hurt other people
Moral: things that help other people
Neutral (but can be done with no problems): everything else
The basis of my morality is that concise.
John 8.7
And you fail to realize that even Ayn Rand would not have agreed with your blanket partisan assessment. She saw those she disagreed with as being wrong, not always immoral.
DAMN! I didn't get that memo.Where did you get that from?:2wave:
I put up a statement of morality to define terms.
Essentially, I view the democrats as unethical. I hold this view because there is no dedication to fact or truth within the party. Lying is not only tolerated, it is encouraged, provided it serves the party. Among the core democrats, right and wrong are only measures of what promotes the party.
In short, I view the democrats as unethical because the party operates as a sociopathic organization.
A few of our posters seem to think that those who have certain ideologies are moral nihilists. For example, they believe that liberals are moral nihilists and thus liberals believe that nothing is either moral or immoral.
The definition of moral is below for purposes of this poll:
moral: Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
So the question is, are you personally concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior in regards to your own actions and the goodness or badness of your own character?
I put up a statement of morality to define terms.
Essentially, I view the democrats as unethical. I hold this view because there is no dedication to fact or truth within the party. Lying is not only tolerated, it is encouraged, provided it serves the party. Among the core democrats, right and wrong are only measures of what promotes the party.
In short, I view the democrats as unethical because the party operates as a sociopathic organization.
Sort of a broad definition. Don't you think?
What is "right and wrong?" What defines "goodness" or "badness" of human character?
Personally, I'd consider anyone willing to have an abortion on an elective basis to fail both criteria outright.
Someone else might think that I fail the test on the basis of my rather hard-nosed stances on issues of foreign policy.
Well all I can say is that only a total hack would agree with you.
The same would be true if someone made such a statement about Republicans calling them all liars and a sociopathic organization. It is a statement that only a hack would make.
Galatians 5:19-21
Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Short list
I think many lefties are.
Please review how I voted in the poll. The point I was making is that if morality has no objective basis then it is an entirely worthless and serves no purpose whatsoever.
Out of curiosity, if everyone gets to define right and wrong in their own terms then isn't the whole concept of a definition pretty much a waste of time?
Not at all. The question is do you personally believe in a moral code. Not what that moral code is. On some issues such as sexual morality, it is fairly subjective. Others such as honesty, stealing, murder, are not subjective.
A simple reminder that we are all sinners. However only those who repent and seek forgiveness will garner God's good graces.
Sort of a broad definition. Don't you think?
What is "right and wrong?" What defines "goodness" or "badness" of human character?
Personally, I'd consider anyone willing to have an abortion on an elective basis to fail both criteria outright.
What I have posted is irrefutable fact. Because it works against your party, you claim only a "hack" would agree. This demonstrates my point that democrats hold party above any sort of ethical code or consideration of integrity.
I didn't call all democrats are liars.
There is a core in the party made up of perhaps 10%, who control the platform and direction of the party. This core has chosen to eschew integrity. From open lies about emails, to open lies about "you can keep your doctor" to open lies about Bengahzi, the party has consistently shunned the concepts of ethics.
I'm not a big fan of the Republicans, but thus far they have not openly purged integrity from the party the way the democrats have.
Eh, why are those not subjective?
Lying is a top skill of Dems and Repubs alike. Sociopaths? The lot of them! It does no good to just call out one side when the whole system is rotten.
At this point, one side has taken it to an extreme. Purging the party of ethical concerns and the constraints of integrity was a central plank in the platform under Clinton, and has remained the foundation of the party since.
:roll:
Yes obviously some morals are subjective. However, humanity pretty much universally considers lying, stealing, and murder to be immoral.
I suppose that any human construct is ultimately subjective. However, when I say those morals are not, I really mean that they are pretty much universally accepted as immoral actions regardless of religion, culture, race, or ideology.
If you're willing to kill a human being, let alone a baby, just to save a few bucks and a few hours of your free time - when you almost certainly created that human being because you were too lazy to take the proper precautions necessary to prevent doing so in the first place - you are an objectively terrible human being.
Sorry, but my stance on that isn't going to change. :shrug:
Your concept of what constitutes "irrefutable fact" is a bit flawed. What you stated was your opinion. For example, if one stated that Republicans are the party of the rich, then they are making a statement of opinion. They might think it's an "irrefutable fact", but its their opinion.
And this, everybody, is what we call a massive judgement by a stick in the mud.
Yup. When in doubt, play the "it's none of your business" card. :roll:
Have fun with that. Just bear in mind that it places you rather squarely in the company of wife beaters, child abusers, genocidal dictators, and Southern slave owners. :lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?