**2012 Election Day thread**

[StrangeSox]

Ok wtf me, jenks and ss2k5 are all arguing on the same side.

[southsider2k5]

No it really isnt. Morality involves good v bad, that the action of interfering is bad or good. I am saying that the action is neither good nor bad, it just is. I am not saying that the action is right or wrong, I am saying that the action just is.

 

The reason you cant do the action is because the other person has the right to not be interfered with, thus your action was neither good, bad, right or wrong, it just was not allowed.

 

Im making no judgment on the actual act itself, but regardless this semantics argument isnt going to go anywhere.

 

Besides, according to your system, we should have no tax code.

[Soxbadger]

I think the point they are making is why is your desire to do whatever you want outweighed by the affected person's right to be unaffected by you?

 

Do you view a bear that kills a fish as wrong because he affected the fish?

 

Well and thats why Ive clarified and said that my position could be moral, if you were to take away the good/bad or right/wrong aspect. Its not that your desires are outweighed, is that both can not have the same thing. Thus if 2 peoples desires are in conflict, its not about whether 1 person is right or wrong, its about whether we defer to the person who is taking, or defer to the person who is being taken from. In my opinion the protection should go to the person who something is being taken from, not because its right or wrong, good or bad, but just because 2 people cant have the same thing.

 

The Bear is neither right nor wrong, the bear is neither good nor bad. The bear just is.

[cabiness42]

Nope not true at all.

 

In each of those instances you caused harm to another person, thats not a moral question.

 

But that leads back to the question as to whether or not a fetus is a human being, so it's a scientific and not a moral question.

[iamshack]

Well and thats why Ive clarified and said that my position could be moral, if you were to take away the good/bad or right/wrong aspect. Its not that your desires are outweighed, is that both can not have the same thing. Thus if 2 peoples desires are in conflict, its not about whether 1 person is right or wrong, its about whether we defer to the person who is taking, or defer to the person who is being taken from. In my opinion the protection should go to the person who something is being taken from, not because its right or wrong, good or bad, but just because 2 people cant have the same thing.

 

The Bear is neither right nor wrong, the bear is neither good nor bad. The bear just is.

Yeah, I understand what you are saying...at least I think I do...there is sort of a natural order to things, and there is kind of a utilitarian need to make whole the person who was negatively affected in some way.

 

Just not sure you can make such an argument without it being a moral position.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

The point is government makes decisions all the time based on morals, based on what we as a society believe is the "right" thing to do - providing assistance to the poor, providing education, providing healthcare, providing other life services like ambulances or fire departments or police protection. That's based on our morals, not because it was mandated by a document.

 

Okay a lot of that makes no sense. Fire departments, police departments and hospitals arent because they are the right thing to do, its because the collective as a whole benefits from pooling their resources together. Most people could not afford to have their own fire department or hospital, thus they agree to pool resources together. No idea how that is moral.

 

Now health care, poor and education could be moral, that I agree with. And Im absolutely against the govt doing these things for moral reasons. The only reason I think the govt should be involved is economic reasons, morality should play no part.

 

I am for small govt, I dont like the govt being involved in most things.

 

Besides, according to your system, we should have no tax code.

 

Tax code isnt moral, its economical. Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations outlined why a progressive tax system is economically necessary in a capitalist society.

 

You pay the govt because you get a benefit, not because its good or bad.

 

According to my system you can freely agree to pay for services. If you dont want the services of the US, you are free to go somewhere else.

[Jenksismyhero]

Okay a lot of that makes no sense. Fire departments, police departments and hospitals arent because they are the right thing to do, its because the collective as a whole benefits from pooling their resources together. Most people could not afford to have their own fire department or hospital, thus they agree to pool resources together. No idea how that is moral.

 

Now health care, poor and education could be moral, that I agree with. And Im absolutely against the govt doing these things for moral reasons. The only reason I think the govt should be involved is economic reasons, morality should play no part.

 

I am for small govt, I dont like the govt being involved in most things.

 

 

 

Tax code isnt moral, its economical. Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations outlined why a progressive tax system is economically necessary in a capitalist society.

 

You pay the govt because you get a benefit, not because its good or bad.

 

According to my system you can freely agree to pay for services. If you dont want the services of the US, you are free to go somewhere else.

 

You're ignoring the end goal - we want people to be free from crime, free from health problems, whatever. We do that not because we can, or because it's easier to do it collectively, but because we think its' right.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Edit: I guess that means you're really ok with the death penalty? Because if you don't want the government deciding any moral issue, well then we'll just go with the facts and the laws we have and if they're determined to be guilty then that's the final word. The moral dilemma that they MIGHT be putting to death someone that's innocent should have no say in the matter.

[Soxbadger]

But that leads back to the question as to whether or not a fetus is a human being, so it's a scientific and not a moral question.

 

To me it is a science question.

 

 

Yeah, I understand what you are saying...at least I think I do...there is sort of a natural order to things, and there is kind of a utilitarian need to make whole the person who was negatively affected in some way.

 

Just not sure you can make such an argument without it being a moral position.

 

Well the problem is that they are pinning me to a word I used inelegantly. Its a message board and I just used "morality" as a quick way to say that I dont like the govt making value judgments on good bad actions based on judeo christian beliefs. It was really not the crux of the point, but whatever.

 

I just find it amusing that certain people want to have a semantics argument and try and nail me to the cross on the use of a pretty flimsy word "moral". Because thats really not the point of what Im getting at all.

 

Its utility based, not morality based, but in theory utility is nothing more than a moral.

[Soxbadger]

You're ignoring the end goal - we want people to be free from crime, free from health problems, whatever. We do that not because we can, or because it's easier to do it collectively, but because we think its' right.

 

Im not ignoring anything. Im saying that it doesnt matter what other people think, this is what I think. And I dont want to be doing things because we subjectively think they are right or wrong in the moment. Id rather do things based on utility. Whether you agree with that or not, its your choice.

 

 

Edit: I guess that means you're really ok with the death penalty? Because if you don't want the government deciding any moral issue, well then we'll just go with the facts and the laws we have and if they're determined to be guilty then that's the final word. The moral dilemma that they MIGHT be putting to death someone that's innocent should have no say in the matter.

 

Death penalty argument has nothing to do with my argument and in fact would be supported by the utility concept. The potential mistake vastly outweighs the gain of execution.

 

I dont care whether the death penalty is right or wrong, I dont think its good or bad.

[Jenksismyhero]

Im not ignoring anything. Im saying that it doesnt matter what other people think, this is what I think. And I dont want to be doing things because we subjectively think they are right or wrong in the moment. Id rather do things based on utility. Whether you agree with that or not, its your choice.

 

 

 

 

Death penalty argument has nothing to do with my argument and in fact would be supported by the utility concept. The potential mistake vastly outweighs the gain of execution.

 

I dont care whether the death penalty is right or wrong, I dont think its good or bad.

 

The argument wasn't about what you think is right/wrong, it's whether the government already does this or not. You don't want government to be making those types of decisions and yet they do, all the time, so who cares if they make a moral decision on abortion. Add it to the list.

[RockRaines]

How do you ruin a very valuable thread? Lets debate abortion!!!

[cabiness42]

To me it is a science question.

 

 

 

 

Well the problem is that they are pinning me to a word I used inelegantly. Its a message board and I just used "morality" as a quick way to say that I dont like the govt making value judgments on good bad actions based on judeo christian beliefs. It was really not the crux of the point, but whatever.

 

I just find it amusing that certain people want to have a semantics argument and try and nail me to the cross on the use of a pretty flimsy word "moral". Because thats really not the point of what Im getting at all.

 

Its utility based, not morality based, but in theory utility is nothing more than a moral.

 

That's a hilarious statement coming from you.

 

[Soxbadger]

The argument wasn't about what you think is right/wrong, it's whether the government already does this or not. You don't want government to be making those types of decisions and yet they do, all the time, so who cares if they make a moral decision on abortion. Add it to the list.

 

I care because I want to take power away from the govt. Im not just going to sit here and say "Oh well the govt has this power there is nothing we can do about it."

 

Screw that. The govt banned drinking, the people took that back. Its time that people start taking back power, instead of just fighting each other over what new power we should give to the govt.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

Tax code isnt moral, its economical. Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations outlined why a progressive tax system is economically necessary in a capitalist society.

 

You pay the govt because you get a benefit, not because its good or bad.

 

According to my system you can freely agree to pay for services. If you dont want the services of the US, you are free to go somewhere else.

 

That is for the collective good, which is by its very definition moral.

[StrangeSox]

How do you ruin a very valuable thread? Lets debate abortion!!!

[southsider2k5]

How do you ruin a very valuable thread? Lets debate abortion!!!

 

This thread has gone through some twists all right.

[Soxbadger]

That is for the collective good, which is by its very definition moral.

 

Im pretty done arguing the word moral. As Ive said numerous times I used it as a quick way to get an idea out. I didnt realize that the word police were going to try and pin me on the word, instead of actually arguing about whether we should keep expanding govt power.

 

I apologize for any that I have offended by my careless use of a word in an internet discussion.

[Jenksismyhero]

I care because I want to take power away from the govt. Im not just going to sit here and say "Oh well the govt has this power there is nothing we can do about it."

 

Screw that. The govt banned drinking, the people took that back. Its time that people start taking back power, instead of just fighting each other over what new power we should give to the govt.

 

But you're incredibly selective with that power. Let's get rid of equal protection laws, god damn government telling me how I have to act towards people. If I don't want to hire black people or gays, or if I want to pay my female secretary 10 times less than my male secretary, so be it! I have zee power!!

[Soxbadger]

But you're incredibly selective with that power. Let's get rid of equal protection laws, god damn government telling me how I have to act towards people. If I don't want to hire black people or gays, or if I want to pay my female secretary 10 times less than my male secretary, so be it! I have zee power!!

 

How am I selective.

 

I dont agree with those laws. Maybe you should ask my position before you assume you know me.

[Jenksismyhero]

How am I selective.

 

I dont agree with those laws. Maybe you should ask my position before you assume you know me.

 

You're ok with discrimination? If so, my bad.

[Soxbadger]

You're ok with discrimination? If so, my bad.

 

Well to an extent yes, because everyone naturally discriminates. I dont think there is any advantage to hiring only white people or only black people or hiring no women, thus I think that the market would actually dictate who was hired.

 

If your female secretary doesnt like being paid 10x less, she can go somewhere else. Or if youre foolishly overpaying your male secretary, thats your own dumb business.

 

Im not a fan of racists, but I also am not sure that the govt should have the right to tell people that they cant be racist. Im not a fan of thought crime.

 

Id be lying if I said Ive never discriminated, it may not have been due to race, religion, but Ive definitely discriminated against people that are hipsters.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

I think we can all agree, hipsters are the worst and SHOULD be discriminated against.

[Soxbadger]

I think we can all agree, hipsters are the worst and SHOULD be discriminated against.

 

In history books they will praise the day that we put aside our differences to form the anti-hipster coalition.

[Jenksismyhero]

In history books they will praise the day that we put aside our differences to form the anti-hipster coalition.