I have no intent of defending the Republicans.
Still, the incorporation of outright lying as the foundation of the party is the act of the democrats.
View attachment 67178875
How is it your business?
And when it doubt, ad hom it out, right? :lol:
They both do it as much as possible, R or D, there's no difference. Republocrats all act similarly.
Reality belies your position.
The Republicans are nothing pleasant. Republicans are about as beneficial as a bad case of genital herpes. democrats are full blown AIDS.
They are both cancer.
Under Republicans, I get to keep civil rights.
Under democrats, I do not.
No you don't. Repubs have no concept of privacy nor restriction on search and seizure. No respect for free speech, they support increasingly militarized policing of the population, contributed to the volume of laws that makes America the #1 jailer of its own peoe world wide. They expand bureaucracy and government power and have no respect for the rights and liberties of the individual. You don't keep your rights with any of the Republocrats.
How was Slavery the North's business?
No Ad Hominem present. I accurately described elective abortion as what it actually is.
It is the legal ability for one human being to dehumanize, and even grievously harm, another without consequence, simply because that first person is considered to be more "socially relevant" than the second. You could describe historical attitudes towards child and domestic abuse, as well slavery, in exactly the same way.
I'm sorry if the comparison makes you uncomfortable. :shrug:
No you don't. Repubs have no concept of privacy nor restriction on search and seizure. No respect for free speech, they support increasingly militarized policing of the population, contributed to the volume of laws that makes America the #1 jailer of its own peoe world wide. They expand bureaucracy and government power and have no respect for the rights and liberties of the individual. You don't keep your rights with any of the Republocrats.
Because the North and the South were a country? Last I checked it was the United States of America, no?
And no you didn't. You're fallaciously assuming that a fetus is, in fact, a human being -- which, so far, isn't the case.
The wanton slaughter of unborn children presently takes place in my own country as well. Does it not?
The term you are looking for here is "person," not "human being," which is a legal construct anyway. The fact that a fetus is a "human being" on a biological or genetic basis is undeniable.
Though... I guess it is worth noting that Southern slave owners tried to justify their actions by claiming that African Americans were neither legal "persons," or even, in some cases, the same species as their Causasian owners as well. :lol:
They both do it as much as possible, R or D, there's no difference. Republocrats all act similarly.
No you don't. Repubs have no concept of privacy nor restriction on search and seizure. No respect for free speech, they support increasingly militarized policing of the population, contributed to the volume of laws that makes America the #1 jailer of its own peoe world wide. They expand bureaucracy and government power and have no respect for the rights and liberties of the individual. You don't keep your rights with any of the Republocrats.
Using your parameters for morality in your case, it is immoral, under any circumstance to harm anybody. What if someone can be helped if you harm another person?
Under Republicans, I get to keep civil rights.
Under democrats, I do not.
I have seen freedom of expression crushed in this nation - but not by Republicans. I look and those who attacked Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, and I don't see Republicans - I see the party. I have seen people branded with a scarlet letter for holding views that our rulers opposed, speak against homosexuality and lose your job at the very least. I see the party accrue privilege to groups, while denying rights to individuals.
The Republicans are weak in defending civil rights.
The democrats are strong is attacking civil rights.
The Republicans (and democrats) agreed to monitor cell phone traffic to foreign nationals in Muslim countries suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.
The democrats spied on enemies of the party and set the IRS on them.
There is no legitimate comparison.
I wish the Republicans were dedicated to defending civil rights - but I know that the democrats are fully committed to ending civil rights.
Those are a matter of instinct, more than anything else.
However, "right and wrong" goes beyond that.
Is a person willing to do the "right thing" even when it is the difficult thing to do? Are they willing to do so when no one is watching?
That would get more to the heart of "goodness" and "badness," imo.
That is an issue of conscience though. Most people do the right thing because of their conscience, that is unless they can rationalize it somehow and humans are great at rationalization.
No, fact is fact. You've not challenged me on fact, you only move to defend your party.
I doubt you have any care at all that your party systematically embraces deception and dishonesty as policy, provided that those who would expose this fact are silenced.
We can average the net worth of members of both houses to test whether the "party of the rich" claim is factual. (democrats have about 30% greater wealth.)
Our Oligarchical Congresscritters Are WAY Richer Than You | PJ Tatler
True. However, that kind of goes back to the root of the question I was asking before.
Is the OP's question really the right one to ask?
I'm pretty sure that even Hitler and Joseph Stalin had at least some sense of "right and wrong." That doesn't mean it was necessarily correct. :lol:
In the case of Hitler and Stalin they were obviously textbook sociopaths. Granted most sociopaths do not kill people. In fact, the vast majority are not even needlessly cruel to people or animals. However, all sociopaths lack what we think of as a conscience. They act purely on what they perceive as being rational. In the case of Stalin, he had what he saw was a rational goal (modernizing Russia and suppressing dissent). The rational way of him doing that (as he saw it) was through complete control of the masses, brutally suppressing any dissent, and maintaing a forced labor force in the gulags. He was able to do this because he was completely unencumbered by conscience or empathy.
Dehumanization has came up in this thread. That was kind of the point of my poll. As I pointed out earlier, a few on here have argued that liberals are "moral nihilists" or people that in general are not bound by morality. That type of thinking is a perfect example of dehumanizing those you disagree with as having a sense of right and wrong and a conscience are what define us as human. Those that are not constrained by a sense of morality and conscience we refer to as "inhuman".
Lol @ people on the internet tying the vagaries of morality to a political spectrum.. That's like saying my brand of microwave is better than your brand of microwave. It's silly and childish.
Mark Sanford reveals he's called off engagement to Argentinian 'soulmate' mistress for whom he divorced wife in scandal that ruined his White House dreams | Daily Mail Online
Mark Sanford reveals he’s called off engagement to Argentinian ‘soulmate’ mistress for whom he divorced wife in scandal that ruined his White House dreams
Sanford said in a Facebook post on Friday that he and mistress turned fiancee Maria Belen Chapur had ended their relationship
The announcement came a week and a half after Sanford's ex-wife suggested her former husband does illegal and prescription drugs
In the 2,346 Facebook post Sanford claims he has never done drugs and says the accusations made by former spouse are 'crazy'
You can always tell the idiots in a room by who labels peoples morality by their political affiliations. It's idiocy defined. Can you imagine if you were able to pull up all the sexual doings of the average "Conservative Grand Puba" on this board who tie morality to political conservatism? My god.. You can begin to imagine what I mean. People are hypocrites and delusional when it comes to notions of morality.
Since the thread is about morals, I think its immoral to bring up the abortion issue in every flipping debate.
:lamo:2wave:
In any case, however, I'm not really sure if I understand your point in starting this thread to begin with. You're trying to prove that Liberals have morals?
By and large, I'd agree. I'd also agree that dehumanization is a problem (for both sides of the spectrum).
Whether Liberal morals are "correct," or not, is obviously open for interpretation, however.
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?