Why people vote republican (thought provoking)

[edededed]

People not only vote for parties, they somehow rationalize and believe themselves that they are objectively deciding that the party's candidates are the best candidates that they should vote for.

(Join MY political party instead - the Good Party. We do CMA, too...)

[Michael]

It's useless though, the mob will be the mob.
(Cue Steve James: "But you are part of the 'mob' too!" )

LOL, we all have our "catch phrases". Much love for Steve and all you guys, especially those of you with real people personalities that weren't downloaded from the pop culture!

[Steve James]

It's not a catch phrase. You guys "Are" the "Man" and the "Mob." It's US history. Why do you think you're not?

[CaliG]

They vote Republican because they think Obama is a terrorist.

I guess when debating the issues doesn't work they have to try something.

[Darthwing Teorist]

It depends on the context. Of course, if the family is going thhrough famine, Fido may become fair game. However the scenario did not say that, only that the poor thing was hit by a car.

Well, morality shouldn't depend on the context. Either it's wrong to eat a dog or it's not.

For me, morality is more complex than that. What you seem to talk about is a set of static rules, which is fine up to a certain point. But the world is more complex than that. At this moment, for me, morality is a dynamic thing based on certain base values. You apply these values to decide if a situation or action is good or evil. Or rather that it is more good than evil or more evil than good.

I know that you are familiar with this kind of argument, but let's say that we agree that eating dogs is wrong. However, if your child is famished, you may decide to make him a doggie kebab, if you have no other choice.

Another example, this is one of the only ways that martial arts can be moral: we train to hurt others. Let's say that you make The Decision and use your training to hurt someone. The act may be a good thing if it came out of respect for life, yours and others and you decided that hurting someone would help prevent similar or larger damage to yourself or others. But it may be evil if you hurt someone for something that may have damaged you or others less (for example calling you names).

[DeusTrismegistus]

They vote Republican because they think Obama is a terrorist.

I guess when debating the issues doesn't work they have to try something.

Um I won't vote Obama because I can't stand his stance on the issues. If you would like to post something about issues I will gladly participate. Lately all I have seen is PWNAGE threads about shit.

Seriously. We can have a go on Gun Control, Abortion, Economy, Taxes, Social Security, Stem Cells, anything you want.

I haven't heard Obama debate any issues really. Its all deflection onto meaningless drivel. Same as any other election. Same as McCain is doing. Its sickening.

[Steve James]

For me, morality is more complex than that. What you seem to talk about is a set of static rules, which is fine up to a certain point. But the world is more complex than that.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. I'm telling you that you have no real moral argument on why it is wrong to eat a dog. You simply think it's wrong. I could say that it's wrong to eat a pig. So, which one would be right? What "static" rules do you think I have. I don't eat dog, but I eat pig. I just know that it has nothing to do with morality.

I'm afraid that what you are talking about is subjective or conditional morality. Essentially, you decide what you think is right or wrong depending on the conditions. That, as a matter of fact, is what we are all forced to do. That's why there are no "moral" rules. No one yet has found one, not even "do unto others."

My point is simply that eating a dog is not immoral. Eating a human is not immnoral ... Because just as you say, it may be necessary in a pinch. This is the same for killing (as opposed to "murder"). If it's "not immoral", that means that it is "moral." Our society believes that killing human beings is moral, but murder is immoral --for obvious reasons of social self-preservation.

Another example, this is one of the only ways that martial arts can be moral: we train to hurt others.

You're projecting your intentions onto others. "We" do not train to hurt others. I could say that we train to protect ourselves, enojoy our friends, and become healthier. I agree that the decision to hurt someone is serious, and that training in a martial art gives one the tools to hurt others more easily. That just means that martial artists sould have a greater responsibility. Frankly, I think the idea that a martial artist takes responsibility to help and/or heal much more seriously than the idea of hurting someone. Shucks, I don't need martial arts for that, and using a firearm is much simpler. Likewise, though, the possession of a weapoon imposes a greater responsibility --but not a different one than a guy with a knife or a baseball bat.

[Darthwing Teorist]

You're projecting your intentions onto others. "We" do not train to hurt others. I could say that we train to protect ourselves, enojoy our friends, and become healthier. I agree that the decision to hurt someone is serious, and that training in a martial art gives one the tools to hurt others more easily. That just means that martial artists sould have a greater responsibility. Frankly, I think the idea that a martial artist takes responsibility to help and/or heal much more seriously than the idea of hurting someone. Shucks, I don't need martial arts for that, and using a firearm is much simpler. Likewise, though, the possession of a weapoon imposes a greater responsibility --but not a different one than a guy with a knife or a baseball bat.

I completely agree with the above. I was just trying to put martial art training in a negative light to make my point.


About something not being "immoral" therefore being "moral", I don't think that it works quite like that. IMO, most situations are neither. Or maybe I am confusing moral with good.

[Steve James]

About something not being "immoral" therefore being "moral", I don't think that it works quite like that. IMO, most situations are neither. Or maybe I am confusing moral with good.

You are absolutely right... technically. Just because something is "not immoral" does not mean that it is "moral." I was being too loose with my words. What I was trying to get it is that "moral" is extremely hard to define. So, it comes out that two people with contradictory outlooks on an act might both say that they're acting morally.

Imagine you walk around the corner and see a guy holding a gun on a woman. You have a stick, and bop him on the head. She picks up the gun and shoots him, then runs away. He was an undercover detective making a bust. Where's the morality here. Or, suppose you are a soldier in WW2, there are Nazis in a house. You throw a grenade in, and find that they were hiding in an orphanage. Are you a killer or a murderer?

Moral diemmas occur because of this. More often than not, we have conflicts of morals where both sides think they're are right. The results are rarely good. But, the guys on one side will always say that it is "right" to kill the guys on the other --and use their skulls for souvenirs. Whereas, if the guys on the other side did the same thing, they'd be called immoral beasts and monsters. That's what we always have to watch out for relativism --if we want to determine what is moral.

One way that some use to tell the difference between a moral act and an immoral one is to examine the particular interest and benefit the doer has in the action. If you make money or save money by doing something, or if it makes you look better or heroic, then it's doubtful that the action was "moral" in the abstract. It was just "good", perhaps. If, otoh, you lose something, or give up something, or do something that makes you look badly, but you do it just because you think it's right, then the chance that the action was "moral" is greater. In the Bible, there's the line "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." That, imo, is "true." And, a guy who jumps on a grenade to save his buddies in the trench commits a moral act. Whereas, it is unclear whether dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima or the phosphorous bombs on Dresden were moral, even though each act may have saved people in London and NY.

Ya know, these are the ancient subjects, the ones that people have tackled over the centuries. The best thing that any one can do is think about them. Ultimately, the decisions are up to you, either way. But, the only other resolution to these issues is violence, which is typically the one that is used, cause it doesn't require much thought. It just doesn't solve much, either.

[nianfong]

They vote Republican because they think Obama is a terrorist.

I guess when debating the issues doesn't work they have to try something.

Um I won't vote Obama because I can't stand his stance on the issues. If you would like to post something about issues I will gladly participate. Lately all I have seen is PWNAGE threads about shit.

Seriously. We can have a go on Gun Control, Abortion, Economy, Taxes, Social Security, Stem Cells, anything you want.

I haven't heard Obama debate any issues really. Its all deflection onto meaningless drivel. Same as any other election. Same as McCain is doing. Its sickening.

just read the article deus. it's quite interesting really.

[internalenthusiast]

The McCain-Palin Mob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E



"I Voted For Hillary Clinton!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

[Darthwing Teorist]

The first one was awesome. That false blonde chick was popping up in front of the camera like some sort of Palinesque jack-in-the-box.


Thanks John!

[Steve James]

Whoopi Goldberg has a skit where she voices her opinion that being called "stupid" is a lot worse than being called the "n-word."
Well, the one thing that is heartening about the video is that I remember when it was 90% of the people who would act just like the people in the first video. It reminds me of ... ah, I remember, the face of hatred and ignorance.

[steelincotton]

The McCain-Palin Mob

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E

Wow, these people are stupid and proud of it too!!

Such hate, racism, and ignorance; you'd think we'd be further along than that by now. For example, the other day at a neo-nazi-like Palin rally where sweet hockey-mom Sarah excited the crowd so much by calling Obama a terrorist that some in the audience were chanting "KILL HIM, KILL HIM!!" Also, the cameraman, who was black, was verbally assaulted with racial attacks! Palin and McCain could hear the crowd's horrible chants and insults, but of course they condone it, so don't expect those knuckleheads to say anything about it. McCain sickens me to the core, and yes, he's still a total a douchebag, and so is his dumb sidekick who can't name a single magazine that she reads.

[DeusTrismegistus]

They vote Republican because they think Obama is a terrorist.

I guess when debating the issues doesn't work they have to try something.

Um I won't vote Obama because I can't stand his stance on the issues. If you would like to post something about issues I will gladly participate. Lately all I have seen is PWNAGE threads about shit.

Seriously. We can have a go on Gun Control, Abortion, Economy, Taxes, Social Security, Stem Cells, anything you want.

I haven't heard Obama debate any issues really. Its all deflection onto meaningless drivel. Same as any other election. Same as McCain is doing. Its sickening.

just read the article deus. it's quite interesting really.

I did read it. I also signed up and have taken 5 or 6 of their morality surveys. Its pretty interesting. I am not sure where they draw the line between moral philosophy and moral psychology though.

To me it doesn't make much sense the way the whole article is formulated though. They are talking about morality and political orientation when IMO morality shouldn't have much to do with political orientation. There is that old saying "You can't legislate morality." I mean it is all interesting and it may have some value but it really only addresses the deeper issue that most people make political decisions based on their morality, religion, upbringing, and emotional interest. When IMO any voter should do their best to avoid making a decision about an issue based on those factors. Politics should be about running our country, not right and wrong.