Has the GOP gone insane? And if not, at what point or criteria might we safely say it has? (ethics, rating)

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by bUU

And I suppose you consider assessing the moral quality of what you support and finding it lacking vis a vis universal ethics to be "flinging mud". How convenient. Like I said, you define things custom-tailored to rationalize the corrupt claptrap you want to spew. If you are going to spew it, own it.

Not at all, "flinging mud" is nothing more than insulting your opponent rather than replying with substantive arguments. I do it too, usually in reply to someone who is doing it. Choices of words such as "spew", "claptrap" are just two recent examples. "Corrupt" is not because it is not a purely pejorative word.

I find it entertaining though that you think a "universal ethics" even could exist in such a broad sense. Universal ethics is necessarily limited to something along the lines of doing to others as you would like done to you - as in don't steal, don't murder, etc, etc.

It cannot be said to apply to less clear cut behaviors because people will inevitably have differing opinions on whether those behaviors are ethical or not. You may claim that it is absolutely unethical to not feed the poor, but if in doing so you bankrupt yourself and you and your family become the poor in need of feeding, perhaps another person would find that behavior unethical.

Originally Posted by bUU

You have done everything you could think of to avoid a debate on the morality of a money-centric view of the issue based on universal values of human worth.

I don't believe I've avoided it, I have tried to illustrate that taking a financial view of problems in a world fueled and ruled by money is practical, not moral. That is not intended to imply that those who take a practical view of real world problems are immoral or amoral, it is only to claim that they have found that strict moralism does not lead to workable solutions.

The difference is that you want to debate abstract questions of moralism applied to public policy, and I claim that those questions cannot be effectively applied to public policy because to do so is impractical (that means the result you would get is not the one you desired). Application of public policy is severely limited in efficacy because governments lack infinite money and infinitely ethical people to decide how to spend that money - whether those people be elected representatives or bureaucratic employees. The failings of strict moralism are simply the failings of human nature - we can understand what moral behavior would be, but we do not always practice that behavior, either individually or as a group. My position recognizes this failing and attempts to accommodate it, yours does not in so far as you've explained it beyond a few phrases that you appear to believe are self evident in meaning.

Originally Posted by bUU

Decrypting the BS you posted: You want to rationalize setting aside moral consideration when they disrupt your "practical" narrative.

No, moral considerations are absolutely necessary, but they are applied individually beyond the obvious (that don't murder, don't steal business I mentioned earlier). You cannot always expect a disparate group of people to come to the same moral conclusion that an individual does - which is why you have to resort to practical considerations alone when dealing with groups of people. People disagree about what is right and wrong when they get past the obvious stuff. To recognize that is to work within reality rather than a fantasy world where your strawmen inevitably fall to your utterly sound and irrefutable arguments (see, that's flinging mud again )

Originally Posted by bUU

It isn't what "I" consider moral behavior - it is what is considered moral behavior universally. You yourself just outlined a rationalization for setting aside the primacy of moral considerations when you want to prattle on about the reflections of weak-minded assumptions about what are the practical courses of actions. Doing what's right is difficult. Often it is not clear where the path will lead. That's not justification for throwing people you don't care about under a bus. Until you start valuing people more than money, you'll simply be unable to discuss issues in a moral context.

Tell me then, how you know that what you consider to be moral is the same as what is universally considered to be moral - beyond the obvious stuff I keep mentioning as universal (theft, murder, etc). It is what "you" consider to be moral behavior - I'm arguing with you, not the universe.

I am able to discuss issues in a moral context, I simply don't see the point when discussing them with a person who I believe will insist on their own definition of everything over a recognition that people have different views of the world that lead them to define it differently. No one person has all the right answers - I accept that, and I suspect that you do not.

Originally Posted by bUU

Rationalizing throwing half the people under a bus. Uh - no.

Had to requote what you were replying to:
Honestly, I don't know which side is right on this stuff, I suspect the answer is, as usual, in the middle.

Defend your assertion that this is rationalizing behavior of which you disapprove rather than my recognition that I cannot know all the answers - no person can.

I support the political faction that I believe will act in the best interest of the country as a whole. That support switches sides now and then - usually to the party that is less powerful at the time it switches. I call this support practical, and if you have read what I've written with any attention, I would love to discuss what you think are the faults in my reasoning. If you simply skim over it and come back with a dismissive bit of snark, well, how can you be surprised that I don't think a whole lot of your ability to reason?

Originally Posted by bUU

I doubt it. I think you simply set aside the tenets of morality when they disrupt the narrative that you wish would prevail instead. We're going around in circles.

Ok then, define moral failing for me and we'll see if I agree with it.

I do not set aside tenets of morality, I recognize that they cannot be practically applied to every political problem for reasons I have already outlined. A further reason is that politicians who attempt to solve these problems have a tendency to be fundamentally immoral.

We are going around in circles though. When you are right, I'm quite happy to recognize it and agree with you - I just wish it happened with greater frequency

Originally Posted by bUU

Bull. Don't think that you can escape moral repudiation for what you prefer by buying into such deception.

When what I prefer are policies that will provide the most effective solutions to problems as we define them, then there is no moral repudiation about it. The nice thing about being pragmatic is that I don't have to hate you - I can simply accept that you may have a different idea of what policies will provide the most effective solutions. You on the other hand, are obliged to hate everyone you think is immoral, and that must be a very big group.

Originally Posted by bUU

Everyone does. That's the lie you're buying into - that anyone opposes going after abusers. Prosecute them for violating the rules. Enforce the provisions of the programs already in place. Add new provisions that that specifically and explicitly target abuse rather than classes of people you feel contain excessive amounts of people you consider abusers. Everyone is in support of these things. But not the callous disregard for those less fortunate inherent in the changes these proposals put forward.

So what specifically in these proposals do you consider to be callous disregard for those less fortunate?

If I think Ryan's proposed reforms are to improve efficiency through means testing, essentially, and you think this is a lie and that everyone agrees on cutting out abuse, then demonstrate that for me by quoting Mr. Ryan on the subject and providing your own interpretation of his words.

You mistake me on the groups - I meant only that I draw a distinction between people who use welfare programs as they were intended to be used - temporary assistance to prevent a cascade of problems caused by unemployment - and those people who abuse the system and use it as a permanent source of income. The distinction I'm talking about is just the same one you agree with in your reply - prevent or punish abuse of entitlement programs.

Originally Posted by bUU

Thanks for admitting that the right-wing regularly eats its own, browbeating from its ranks any people who don't pander to the egoistic avarice that right-wingers prefer. That's all that needs to be said.

There you go again.... do you know you're nuts? Did it ever occur to you that I say what I mean, not what you think I mean? Probably not, you would be a sensible human being if you were aware of such things. It's too bad, things were actually getting fun a few minutes ago.

Ok, since you are too foolish to do so, I will unpack that for you.
You said:
"Let's test your integrity: Name three Republican leaders who have not been attacked by the right-wing itself that have vigorously supported programs that place the basic needs of the poor over lowering taxes - just for example. Show three examples of when today's right-winger leaders have valued less affluent human beings over money in their promulgation of policy."

And my reply was:
"I am not claiming such Republicans exist"

You leap to the unsurprising conclusion that this is a victory for you. It is not. It is nothing more than acknowledging the flaw in your definition. No such Republicans exist because you have defined the question in such a way that only a strawrepublican could satisfy you. Don't be surprised when people decline to accept your loaded questions at face value - we often humor the insane, I would certainly be doing so if this were a face to face conversation rather than on the wonderfully anonymous internet

[Old Gringo]

Totally.

They now pander to the lowest mentality in America.

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

No, Catholicism is NOT Christianity, because it is headed by the POPE, not Christ. It has PEOPLE who decide what the members are to believe, not their conscience and the Pope claims to stand in place of God.

So, no, the Pope is not about Christianity, even if he claims so, and further, he's a radical leftist pushing a political agenda.

Keep that up and see how many votes the GOP gets. Make that your platform please!

[Fiddlehead]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Totally.

They now pander to the lowest mentality in America.

Well, there are lot of dumb people who like to feel like they are smart. Fox New, Limbaugh and all that are all about making concrete pumpers feel like astrophysicists. "You were right all along, about everything!" Just keep those checks coming!

It is not insane, IMO, in fact it is a damn good snow job they have been running for 30 years.

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by pnwmdk

No, Catholicism is NOT Christianity, because it is headed by the POPE, not Christ. It has PEOPLE who decide what the members are to believe, not their conscience and the Pope claims to stand in place of God.

So, no, the Pope is not about Christianity, even if he claims so, and further, he's a radical leftist pushing a political agenda.

Man I wish a republican candidate would open his or her mouth and say that. We'd be able to further weed out the crazies out of the GOP.

[T-310]

Originally Posted by nvxplorer

Contradict yourself much?

Why do you think we've tolerated illegal immigration for 40 years?

I haven't. Career politicians have.

Why I favor term limits.

[E Roy Slade]

Originally Posted by mateo45

Is it finally time that we ask the increasingly obvious question, namely…
Has the G.O.P. Gone Off the Deep End?

Or as Mike Lofgren, a staff member for 16 years on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees, writes…

"The Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe."

And is this really such a preposterous question, when over 40% of Republicans are still "Birthers", and over a third actually believe the POTUS is a muslim? And that's not even counting all the ones who think Obama is an alien lizard, the anti-christ, hell-bent on "turning the U.S. into a 3rd world country", etc.! And if all that doesn't qualify as "insane", then what does?

BTW, here's "Exhibit B", seriously, from none other than former GOP Prez. candidate, Newt Gingrich…

"What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?" Gingrich asked. "That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior."

Obama's Citizenship - July 2014 Rasmussen Poll

i think you're gullible to trust him and democrats-what have they done?nothing

obama was a muslim or lived like one

obamas birth certificate hasn't been shown to be real


im sort of liberal but these Democrats are joke i think

i sort of like bernie sanders and youre trying to divide Americans in 2 major groups -thats bs and boring

[bUU]

Originally Posted by prosopis

Not at all, "flinging mud" is nothing more than insulting your opponent

You're apparently not reading what you're replying to, but rather just posting reckless knee-jerk reactions. My comments are directed at the perspectives you advocate. I've explained why they're immoral. If you cannot handle your perspectives being labeled as immoral, then don't express immoral perspectives.

Originally Posted by prosopis

Choices of words such as "spew", "claptrap" are just two recent examples.

Should I start picking apart your choice of words - the feigned outrage, the casually insular tone intended to make it seem like you have a response when all you're doing is dodging the issue? How about you stop discussion the discussion and stick to the topic, the immoral nature of what you support?

Originally Posted by prosopis

I find it entertaining though that you think a "universal ethics" even could exist in such a broad sense.

Yeah, it's just me.

If you choose to ignore that you live in society with others, and choose to ignore that doing so carries with it obligations to others that you may find unpalatable, you'll remain ignorant of the truth of the issues that I've raised.

Originally Posted by prosopis

It cannot be said to apply to less clear cut behaviors because people will inevitably have differing opinions on whether those behaviors are ethical or not.

And then there are the ethics that society itself has established as the foundation on which individuals' perspectives are based. Moral people choose to build up on top of that foundation. Immoral people vigorously defend abiding by ethics that they pick-and-choose from among the baseline of society.

Originally Posted by prosopis

I don't believe I've avoided it

And I believe you have and have pointed out how. So there is nothing more to say. Yet you seem unable to abide by the fact that a reasonable person has made a point about how immoral is a perspective you support.

Originally Posted by prosopis

I have tried to illustrate that taking a financial view of problems in a world fueled and ruled by money is practical, not moral.

And I have illustrated that blinding one's self to the overriding moral parameters of a situation in order to defend a more petty concern is indefensible. Your "logic" can easily be extended to rationalize killing off large groups of people that you can readily show "cost" society more money than they produce. It's immoral. If you want to believe that way that's your choice, but it is still immoral, despite all your efforts to evade the moral scrutiny of what you put forward.

Originally Posted by prosopis

The difference is that you want to debate abstract questions of moralism applied to public policy, and I claim that those questions cannot be effectively applied to public policy because to do so is impractical

And I have pointed out how ignoring the overriding moral consideration is an indefensible and scurrilous evasion, which serves no purpose other than to rationalize self-serving claptrap. We've already gone over this. Why do you keep bringing it up?

If you don't want to have a discussion about the morality of what you support, then don't. I'll make my statements and you can ignore them. Your choice. Make up your mind. If you want to have a moral argument, then defend your policy perspectives on moral grounds, using ubiquitous standards of moral behavior as the basis of your hypotheses. But don't think you're going to get away with saying, "morality is too hard - stop pointing out how immoral what I support is!"

[kidkaos2]

Originally Posted by bUU

And I suppose you consider assessing the moral quality of what you support and finding it lacking vis a vis universal ethics to be "flinging mud". How convenient. Like I said, you define things custom-tailored to rationalize the corrupt claptrap you want to spew. If you are going to spew it, own it.

As soon as you tell other people that they are rationalizing the corrupt claptrap that they want to spew, you have forfeited any claim to assessing other peoples' moral quality.

One universally accepted quality of morality is respecting the freedom of others. Telling other people what they think and what their motivations are is directly contrary to that, and thus eliminates you from being considered a moral individual.

There is a different that you apparently do not comprehend between being moral and being morally self righteous. Setting yourself up as the judge of others and overriding what they say with your own opinions about what they "really" think is an example of the latter.

When you have matured enough to realize that your own opinions are not the only valid opinions, then you might begin to understand what morality is.

[prosopis]

Originally Posted by bUU

You're apparently not reading what you're replying to, but rather just posting reckless knee-jerk reactions. My comments are directed at the perspectives you advocate. I've explained why they're immoral. If you cannot handle your perspectives being labeled as immoral, then don't express immoral perspectives.

I can handle any label you desire to use. I do not necessarily agree with your labels. Your explanations have gone no further than simply saying it isn't so, alluding to a universality you do not explain, and dismissing everything you consider to be "immoral".

Originally Posted by bUU

Should I start picking apart your choice of words - the feigned outrage, the casually insular tone intended to make it seem like you have a response when all you're doing is dodging the issue? How about you stop discussion the discussion and stick to the topic, the immoral nature of what you support?

Outrage? Wow, you are either remembering a reply way, way back when you actually did make me a little mad (and which I did acknowledge was out of place), but I assure you, that was not feigned. Pick apart my choice of words all you wish, go right ahead that is fair game.

You do not read closely enough to realize that I do not support what you characterize as immoral out of similar immorality. I support what I support for practical considerations. I have explained briefly why morality and politics are mutually inconsistent, but I doubt you read that. You respond to the fact of disagreement, not the substance of it.

Originally Posted by bUU

Yeah, it's just me.

If you choose to ignore that you live in society with others, and choose to ignore that doing so carries with it obligations to others that you may find unpalatable, you'll remain ignorant of the truth of the issues that I've raised.

You've raised no issues here, that's the funny part. Just vague ramblings about the immorality of the GOP. Much easier to hate when you feel justified by a sense of superiority.

Your link is exactly what I was talking about with the basic limits of universal ethics - most of what it outlines is indeed universal, and even the most partisan hack would not argue until they got to Article 25 - even then I will point out that most people recognize that the US minimum wage law satisfies that. You may try to claim that the GOP position on raising that wage negates any support for its existence, but since no one is seriously advocating the repeal of the minimum wage, that argument won't stand up. So you claim that the GOP's resistance to raising it at this time is "immoral"? I don't agree with you that it is immoral, but I do agree that it should be raised - this inflation that Mr. Obama's Administration claims we don't have makes it necessary. The devil, as usual, is in the details, and I suspect you will advocate a larger raise in the minimum wage that will I. So rest assured, you can keep claiming I'm immoral and keep your little nugget of hatred warmly aglow!

Originally Posted by bUU

And then there are the ethics that society itself has established as the foundation on which individuals' perspectives are based. Moral people choose to build up on top of that foundation. Immoral people vigorously defend abiding by ethics that they pick-and-choose from among the baseline of society.

And what to you claim those ethics to be? Come up with another link.

You do not get to set the baseline of society, society at large does that through the general trend in behavior of members of that society.

Originally Posted by bUU

And I believe you have and have pointed out how. So there is nothing more to say. Yet you seem unable to abide by the fact that a reasonable person has made a point about how immoral is a perspective you support.

Nothing more to say, but you sure do keep saying it You've not made your point, you have stated the immorality of the GOP at large, with no support beyond your assertion. That is not making a point.

You have not responded to my attempts to discuss specifics - such as welfare reform - I suspect because you don't actually know much about them and do not wish to spend the time to learn much about them. There are legitimate criticisms to be made of such ideas, but you are too lazy to go find them, preferring to just keep saying "immoral" and think that doing so constitutes a debate.

Originally Posted by bUU

And I have illustrated that blinding one's self to the overriding moral parameters of a situation in order to defend a more petty concern is indefensible. Your "logic" can easily be extended to rationalize killing off large groups of people that you can readily show "cost" society more money than they produce. It's immoral. If you want to believe that way that's your choice, but it is still immoral, despite all your efforts to evade the moral scrutiny of what you put forward.

You have illustrated no such thing, you have merely stated it. Illustrating it would have required you to define those parameters and explain how I am blind to them in order to support a "more petty concern". You have not done this. You might have a chance of doing so if you'd put in the effort, and I have tried to encourage you by mentioning that there are weaknesses in the general GOP platform if you look for them. You never notice that though, apparently thinking that the statement of "you're immoral" is sufficient if you just keep repeating it.

Originally Posted by bUU

And I have pointed out how ignoring the overriding moral consideration is an indefensible and scurrilous evasion, which serves no purpose other than to rationalize self-serving claptrap. We've already gone over this. Why do you keep bringing it up?

If you don't want to have a discussion about the morality of what you support, then don't. I'll make my statements and you can ignore them. Your choice. Make up your mind. If you want to have a moral argument, then defend your policy perspectives on moral grounds, using ubiquitous standards of moral behavior as the basis of your hypotheses. But don't think you're going to get away with saying, "morality is too hard - stop pointing out how immoral what I support is!"

You have not demonstrated that moral considerations are overriding when it comes to the application of public policy, and I have made some effort to explain, in general terms only, why practical considerations are more important. You have not replied to that at all, continuing with your broken record of just saying "immoral" over and over.

Your making statements is not a discussion. I have attempted to illustrate that strictly moral considerations are not practical when applied to public policy - you may either bring forth examples that contradict mine, or you may bring forth other examples unrelated to the ones I mentioned in order to support your claim that liberal government is moral.

I don't say that morality is too hard - I say that it cannot bring you the result you desire because you cannot force the rest of the country to follow your morality. You do not control the actions of others, you do not know their intents, you cannot do much but complain when they fail to measure up to your own standards - that is why you cannot make political decisions upon moral considerations alone - because the other people involved, even on your side politically, will not always follow what you say is the moral course.

Now if you want this to be an actual discussion, you respond to statements like the last paragraph. Explain to me how you implement a moral policy and prevent the problems that come from immoral people exploiting the loopholes. I believe you cannot do this - because what you claim is immoral are what I claim are measures designed to prevent that exploitation. I suspect you would rather allow the exploitation rather than risk the exclusion of those who may be in need. But isn't doing so turning a blind eye to immoral behavior?