EPTThe problem with Cruz isn't talking about that kind of thing. He's advocating Kim Davies-style inaction. And it is basically restricted to that one issue. He's not asking for Quakers to join the army and refuse to fight. It's hypocrisy because he's centered on this one silly issue.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2572
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
The problem with Cruz isn't talking about that kind of thing. He's advocating Kim Davies-style inaction. And it is basically restricted to that one issue. He's not asking for Quakers to join the army and refuse to fight. It's hypocrisy because he's centered on this one silly issue. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 27 2015 12:27 cLutZ wrote: It was never a question. The government has to prove corruption to justify its campaign finance laws per SCOTUS, and all the other lines people attempt to draw boil down to: If you want to pump a candidate during Sunday Night football, you have to buy NBC, not a commercial spot on NBC. Except that Super Pacs are not people, they are poorly regulated "organizations" that funnel money into TV ads. NPR tried to hunt down the home office of one of these super PACs last election and it look 3 month and all they found was a PO Box and a dude playing ad buys as a part time job. He didn't even know who was placing the ads, he just did it because it needed to be done by phone. I am all for free speech, but the key part of it is that the speaker needs to exist in reality. Because if they lie, deceive or comment fraud to win an election, I would like the US people to have some legal recourse to stop that. Currently there is none because no one can regulate these Super PAC or even keep an eye on them. Not the government or the private sector. So freedom of speech can be limited through tax code for cooperation are not humans and can be made up pure vapor and judgement proof unsecured debt. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 28 2015 05:01 farvacola wrote: Luckily, I consider the degree to which my posts irk posters like yourself an indication of their salience, so yes, quite proud. That you can't relate a discussion of moral imperatives to acts of ideological violence, while unfortunate, is not really a concern of mine otherwise. That said, go ahead and do your best to dissociate abortion clinic shooters/bombers with the concept of taking the law into one's own hands. I'm sure that kind of thinking is popular down in Louisiana You could make the exact opposite argument in segregationist America of the past, and that was the original point. Law isn't just, it's only law. The problem with people not marrying gay couples or committing atrocities isn't primarily that they break the law, it's that they hold reprehensible moral views and are bigots. Accepting that moral views can be more important than laws isn't an invitation to moral relativism, actually blindly putting the law above everything else is. Should someone be applauded for upholding the law in an apartheid state? | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
A gunman wearing hunting gear was barricaded inside a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs Friday after opening fire repeatedly on police, injuring three officers. Colorado Springs commander Kirk Wilson spoke briefly with reporters at the scene to say that gunman was "contained" and now must be removed. He also confirmed that three officers were wounded. Their condition was not immediately clear. In addition, some civilians were injured after the gunman walked into the clinic around noon, KKTV reports. "Rounds are coming through the window," one police officer told the dispatcher on the police scanner. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/11/27/reports-active-shooter-barricaded-planned-parenthood-office-colo/76455300/ | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 28 2015 05:23 Nyxisto wrote: You could make the exact opposite argument in segregationist America of the past, and that was the original point. Law isn't just, it's only law. The problem with people not marrying gay couples or committing atrocities isn't primarily that they break the law, it's that they hold reprehensible moral views and are bigots. You're right to suggest that the problem underpinning these acts is not that the actors broke the law, but I think that ignoring the growing lack of confidence in the justice system and our organized way of attempting to mete out justice is a mistake. I would maintain that there is a right way and a wrong way to break the law in the interest of furthering one's own moral imperative (see much of what MLK wrote on the subject), and when you have prominent political figures like Rubio baldly suggest that folks ought to ignore laws they believe their religion disagrees with, the wrong way becomes more popular. So popular, in fact, that state supreme court justices start to believe it. That's not good! So yeah, don't get me wrong, it is as much the law's fault as anything else that people break it for bad reasons, but that does not mean that we should ignore the dangers that come with placing individual morality above the law. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
Cause Nyx and I say it is... but you can be morally wrong and therefore a douchebag or otherwise someone worth punishing. If my morality tells me to beat up Star Wars Prequel lovers, the problem is that my morality is stupid (although on the edge of being justifiable). People who act on stupid moralities deserve to be punished by society. But their error is being wrong on morality, not wrong that morality is above the law. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On November 28 2015 05:31 heliusx wrote: If ever there was a great example of media bias. The shooting is unconnected to PP, confirmed by Colorado area papers. http://m.gazette.com/the-latest-gunman-in-shooting-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs-remains-at-large-multiple-victims-reported/article/1564419 Read the 1:34 update. There is also a chase bank in the vicinity, and a TCF and a gas station. But, yea, must be related to PP. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18828 Posts
On November 28 2015 06:11 Yoav wrote: Wait so are you or are you not in favor of morality over the law? Cause Nyx and I say it is... but you can be morally wrong and therefore a douchebag or otherwise someone worth punishing. If my morality tells me to beat up Star Wars Prequel lovers, the problem is that my morality is stupid (although on the edge of being justifiable). People who act on stupid moralities deserve to be punished by society. But their error is being wrong on morality, not wrong that morality is above the law. I don't think it makes sense to pit the two against each other as exclusive concepts; morality and the law are necessarily commingled. To run with your analogy, hypothetical you who wants to beat up star wars prequel lovers is wrong in more than one regard. You are right in saying that the background moral imperative itself is faulty or otherwise indefensible given a purely ethical analysis, but its implementation relative to the law is similarly flawed in that there are very few defenses to an act of battery. Using acts of violence as our example makes the discussion fairly easy given that we, as a society, have relegated said acts to a very small set of justified circumstances; everything else should be and usually is punished when known. When it comes to something less tidy like paying taxes, however, the problem becomes significantly more complicated because there are competing defensible moral and legal justifications, all of which eventually hinge almost entirely on whether or not one wishes to suffer the legal punishment for failure to pay. In other words, both a moral argument in favor of tax evasion and a legal argument against it are fairly easy to make, which leads to an inevitable hierarchy (i.e. "I disagree with this but do it because the law says I have to"). | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23246 Posts
On November 28 2015 06:19 cLutZ wrote: If ever there was a great example of media bias. The shooting is unconnected to PP, confirmed by Colorado area papers. http://m.gazette.com/the-latest-gunman-in-shooting-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs-remains-at-large-multiple-victims-reported/article/1564419 Read the 1:34 update. There is also a chase bank in the vicinity, and a TCF and a gas station. But, yea, must be related to PP. The PIO (Public information officer) said yes he was in the PP building soo... | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
There was a moment this afternoon when a man walked up to the scene with a handgun strapped to his waist and ammunition vest around his chest. He appeared to be asking police if he could help. Officers told him to leave immediately because appearing at the scene while wearing firearms and that equipment was a bad idea. http://gazette.com/active-shooter-situation-reported-near-planned-parenthood-in-colorado-springs/article/1564419 | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
| ||
| ||
