The Corrosion of Conservatism

[Sparko]

blah blah blah rationalizing blah blah


You have my list. I'm not going to buy into your arbitrary boundary - and I'm not going to eliminate things because you don't like that I happen to have that opinion.

Then don't respond to my posts, Carp. You were answering my challenge. Yet when you answered it, you came up with unrelated nonsense. And when I call you on it, you say the above.

Just don't bother responding to my posts if you are going to go off on some rabbit trail rant of your own.

And it wasn't an arbitrary boundary. We were discussing why christians don't call out Trump for the evil he has done. What he did before he was president doesn't count because He hadn't actually DONE anything as president before he was elected.

So I asked what evil has he done as President that we should call him out on. You are the one who gave an arbitrary answer that was not related to my question.

[guacamole]

I don't get the point of accepting any moral criticism from someone who believes morals are subjective; especially when he denies that belief in practice. I really can see no reason to care what Carpe thinks of Trump's morality. Given Carpe's views on morality, I can't understand why he thinks we should care what he approves or disapproves of, except insofar as he has power to impose his morals on others.

1.) There are plenty of Christians who believe that morals are not subjective and who's concerns about Trump's vile character are hand-waved away by conservatives who...

2.) utilize some of the arguments of moral subjectivity to justify and defend Trump--namely using "the-ends-justify-the-means" ethical reasoning--as if we had to support an immoral fool to get our judges onto the supreme court.

[carpedm9587]

Then don't respond to my posts, Carp. You were answering my challenge. Yet when you answered it, you came up with unrelated nonsense. And when I call you on it, you say the above.

You asked what evil Trump has done - and added the qualifier "since his presidency." I responded to the first part, and ignored the latter. If you don't like it - then you are free to ignore it and not respond.

Just don't bother responding to my posts if you are going to go off on some rabbit trail rant of your own.

As my sister sometimes says, "you're not the boss of me!" I'll respond to whatever posts I please.

And it wasn't an arbitrary boundary.

Yes - it was...IMO

We were discussing why christians don't call out Trump for the evil he has done. What he did before he was president doesn't count because He hadn't actually DONE anything as president before he was elected.

Doesn't count to you.

And my list was not devoid of "since being elected" elements. Frankly, evangelicals have been supporting him since the start of his campaign, so the boundary you set is entirely arbitrary, IMO.

So I asked what evil has he done as President that we should call him out on. You are the one who gave an arbitrary answer that was not related to my question.

I answered as I answered. I leave it to you if you want to continue the discussion.

[Sparko]

You asked what evil Trump has done - and added the qualifier "since his presidency." I responded to the first part, and ignored the latter. If you don't like it - then you are free to ignore it and not respond.



As my sister sometimes says, "you're not the boss of me!" I'll respond to whatever posts I please.



Yes - it was...IMO



Doesn't count to you.

And my list was not devoid of "since being elected" elements. Frankly, evangelicals have been supporting him since the start of his campaign, so the boundary you set is entirely arbitrary, IMO.



I answered as I answered. I leave it to you if you want to continue the discussion.

I don't care for chocolate and peanut butter myself.

[Mountain Man]

2.) utilize some of the arguments of moral subjectivity to justify and defend Trump--namely using "the-ends-justify-the-means" ethical reasoning--as if we had to support an immoral fool to get our judges onto the supreme court.

Um... I'm not sure saying, "I don't care what he did in his personal life a decade ago, or that he has a politically unorthodox management style, I voted for him because I like his agenda," qualifies as "the ends justify the means". As long as Trump doesn't do anything illegal or immoral* as president (and so far he hasn't), then I have no problem with continuing to support him as my president.




* OK, look, he's human, so he's going to do something immoral at some point. That's just part of being human. I'm talking more about something egregiously immoral, or achieving his goals through dishonest or underhanded means (of course, there are some who will claim that he has already done that).

[carpedm9587]

I don't care for chocolate and peanut butter myself.

Chocolate and peanut butter are awesome!

[guacamole]

Um... I'm not sure saying, "I don't care what he did in his personal life a decade ago, or that he has a politically unorthodox management style, I voted for him because I like his agenda," qualifies as "the ends justify the means". As long as Trump doesn't do anything illegal or immoral* as president (and so far he hasn't), then I have no problem with continuing to support him as my president.




* OK, look, he's human, so he's going to do something immoral at some point. That's just part of being human. I'm talking more about something egregiously immoral, or achieving his goals through dishonest or underhanded means (of course, there are some who will claim that he has already done that).

With all due respect, this is the standard hand wave--actions that we would have found disqualifying previously are suddenly "What he did in his personal life a decade ago"-- even if that is comprised of constant sexual sin and the abuse of wealth and power in his dealings with underlings and lovers.

[Sparko]

Chocolate and peanut butter are awesome!

Red cars do indeed go faster.

[rogue06]

Red cars do indeed go faster.

Only if they have racing stripes.

[carpedm9587]

Red cars do indeed go faster.

Not as fast as green ones!

And ask Seer, blue is better than green!

[NorrinRadd]

With all due respect, this is the standard hand wave--actions that we would have found disqualifying previously are suddenly "What he did in his personal life a decade ago"-- even if that is comprised of constant sexual sin and the abuse of wealth and power in his dealings with underlings and lovers.

I agree. I have concluded that we never should have considered such things to be "disqualifying" in any absolute sense.

[Mountain Man]

With all due respect, this is the standard hand wave--actions that we would have found disqualifying previously are suddenly "What he did in his personal life a decade ago"-- even if that is comprised of constant sexual sin and the abuse of wealth and power in his dealings with underlings and lovers.

We were electing a president, not a priest.

But given the high standard you set, am I correct in assuming that you abstain from ever voting? Or do you consider certain sins to be "acceptable"?

[Cow Poke]

Chocolate and peanut butter are awesome!

Together or separate, and whether I'm with somebody or by myself!

[Cow Poke]

Not as fast as green ones!

And ask Seer, blue is better than green!

Ask me!

[MaxVel]

This is curious. I'd like to know how you perceive me "denying that belief in practice."

You consistently post content that assumes your view of the morality of something or someone is one everyone should subscribe to; and that others who have different moral values and priorities to yours are actually wrong to do so. But under your view they're only
wrong in your view, and right in their view.

So you use language that the majority of people assume refers to objective morality (eg calling Trump evil) without any qualifiers added to show that you reject objective morality. That's at worst deliberately deceptive (although I don't think you do set out to deceive) and at best imprecise and careless.

I make the assumption that people have at least some ability to reason morally. So do - some don't. As was discussed with Seer, an unfortunate number of people are in a "follow the herd" morality model, so discussion does becomes close to impossible. I've largely come to that conclusion with Seer. I'm sure he sees it differently.

Irrelevant. Since you don't hold that your moral values are binding on others that don't share them you're inconsistent in expecting others to care what they are. And the farther away they are from your particular moral and social community, the less relevant your moral views are to them. So other posters who live in America but in a different state and in different professions, social circles and so on have at best some interest in your moral values, since you might possibly affect them in some small way. Posters who live in entirely different continents than you (like me) even less so, and so on. Under your moral worldview your moral opinions are about as relevant and important to me as what LaMarcus Aldridge's favourite after-game meal is.

Why should (say) President Trump care about your moral opinions of him? You're not some expert on morality; you're not particularly influential, you don't have power or wealth or any way to significantly affect his life, or the success or failure of any particular project he might have in mind. You aren't (in your moral worldview) calling him to hold to some moral standard that applies to him even if he rejects it.

This is a problem particular to your moral worldview. People who believe in objective moral truths are entirely consistent with that belief when they make moral judgments and call on others to hold to those values and beliefs. They are acting consistently with their worldview even if they are wrong about a particular case; or a particular moral value. They are acting consistently even if they are wrong about there being objective moral values. You are not.