|
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. |
On December 06 2017 07:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now. How is staying at the home the 'principled' thing to do? If you think Roy Moore is so bad for the country that he's not worth voting for, he's also surely so bad for the country that he's worth voting against. Becuase Jones is so bad he's nto worth voting for. That's easy. Mohdoo, I'm not sure anyone wants to re litigate "lesser of two evils" from all of last year. Not voting for either is legit. But maybe that's just me, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't donate to Hillary Clinton either.
Making a choice to not do something is still making a choice. Clinton vs Trump is different because it wasn't clear who would win. If they were considered equals in your eyes, not voting for either one isn't bad. In the case of Roy Moore, he is the assumed winner. Someone who doesn't vote against him is voting for him. There is already an implied course of events. People have the ability to influence those events without cost.
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
On December 06 2017 07:33 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now. How is staying at the home the 'principled' thing to do? If you think Roy Moore is so bad for the country that he's not worth voting for, he's also surely so bad for the country that he's worth voting against. Becuase Jones is so bad he's nto worth voting for. That's easy. Mohdoo, I'm not sure anyone wants to re litigate "lesser of two evils" from all of last year. Not voting for either is legit. But maybe that's just me, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't donate to Hillary Clinton either.
The only difference between actively voting someone heinous into Congress, and passively letting them get voted in is in your mind.
|
On December 06 2017 07:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:27 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 06:51 Plansix wrote:
This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Flake's previous actions and statements make this seem like more of stunt, as Danglars and I have discussed before. You have to be a fool to believe Flake's bs. Yeah, it's called being American and voting to keep antisemitic, child molesters out of the Senate. Apparently good conservatives are lack the spine to put county and their fellow Americans before their own beliefs. Glad I finally have that confirmed for me.
you do this plansixian reductionism all the time and it's super obnoxious. Also I don't see anything in that other posted statement that was antisemitic. I'd need more context. I'm also a good American if I vote to keep an abortion loving crackpot out of the Senate. See how that logic works? Glad I can clear it up.
|
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler?
|
On December 06 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:33 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now. How is staying at the home the 'principled' thing to do? If you think Roy Moore is so bad for the country that he's not worth voting for, he's also surely so bad for the country that he's worth voting against. Becuase Jones is so bad he's nto worth voting for. That's easy. Mohdoo, I'm not sure anyone wants to re litigate "lesser of two evils" from all of last year. Not voting for either is legit. But maybe that's just me, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't donate to Hillary Clinton either. Making a choice to not do something is still making a choice. Clinton vs Trump is different because it wasn't clear who would win. If they were considered equals in your eyes, not voting for either one isn't bad. In the case of Roy Moore, he is the assumed winner. Someone who doesn't vote against him is voting for him. There is already an implied course of events. People have the ability to influence those events without cost.
And what "choice" is Flake required to make in this scenario? I'm fairly certain he can't vote in this election. So what is his moral imperative to send money to Jones and then post it on twitter?
This "implied course of events" is a whole different can of worms.
|
On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler?
Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for.
|
Probably to get people not to vote for a pedophile. If I had to guess. There's a lot of baggage that comes with being a pedophile, and you don't want the prestigious position of congressman to be tarred by association with a pedophile, if you have any kind of national pride as a congressman.
These are just spitballs.
|
United States44404 Posts
A vote for Roy Moore is more principled than abstention imo. I can see someone justifying keeping pro-choice people out of the Senate as a big picture hold your nose vote. I wouldn't agree with the principles involved but I could accept that there was a set of principles involved. But abstention on the issue of child molestation? It's not a principled position. Not ever. No set of principles leads you to neutrality there.
|
I remember seeing that like 2-3% of people were going to write-in rather than vote for Moore or Jones. Do they get more points for being principled than the people who stay at home or is it all the same?
|
On December 06 2017 07:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:38 Mohdoo wrote:On December 06 2017 07:33 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:30 ZigguratOfUr wrote:On December 06 2017 07:22 Introvert wrote:
A principled conservative doesn't vote for someone they believe is fundamentally bad for the country. You can, wait for it...stay home. Flake's criticisms lately exclusively focus on his own party and somehow get him great media coverage, as he leaves office as one of the least popular senators in the country.
If it was merely about keeping a child molester out it would be easy. This thread is in such a rush to give the benefit of the doubt and best possible coverage of any Republican that undermines their own party that it can't see why Flake is going way above and beyond. "This guy is so bad I have to launch everything I believe in to oppose him" was not an argument that was popular among anti-Trumpers like Flake during the campaign. Fascinating it works now. How is staying at the home the 'principled' thing to do? If you think Roy Moore is so bad for the country that he's not worth voting for, he's also surely so bad for the country that he's worth voting against. Becuase Jones is so bad he's nto worth voting for. That's easy. Mohdoo, I'm not sure anyone wants to re litigate "lesser of two evils" from all of last year. Not voting for either is legit. But maybe that's just me, I didn't vote for Trump, but I didn't donate to Hillary Clinton either. Making a choice to not do something is still making a choice. Clinton vs Trump is different because it wasn't clear who would win. If they were considered equals in your eyes, not voting for either one isn't bad. In the case of Roy Moore, he is the assumed winner. Someone who doesn't vote against him is voting for him. There is already an implied course of events. People have the ability to influence those events without cost. And what "choice" is Flake required to make in this scenario? I'm fairly certain he can't vote in this election. So what is his moral imperative to send money to Jones and then post it on twitter? This "implied course of events" is a whole different can of worms.
Flake is a national figure right now and his words have a big podium. Similarly, Sean Hannity's opinion matters (as it relates to the eventual winner of the election) a lot more than a mayor in Alabama. Flake had a choice between sitting back and letting Roy Moore win or actively trying to prevent it.
On December 06 2017 07:45 Tachion wrote:
I remember seeing that like 2-3% of people were going to write-in rather than vote for Moore or Jones. Do they get more points for being principled than the people who stay at home or is it all the same?
Full stop, I would question "what in the god damn hell is good about being principled?"
This idea that unwavering beliefs is a good thing is fucking stupid. If your views haven't changed in the past 10 years, you're not living a philosophically rigorous life.
|
hmm, this kidna feels like another deontological vs consequentialist issue.
alot of it though it that from the perspective of how people "feel" about ethical issues, it's far easier to justify (and easier to feel right about) inaction rather than a harmful action which would prevent a greater harm (which is often a decent heuristic, trolley problems rarely appaer so clearly in real life).
|
United States44404 Posts
On December 06 2017 07:45 Tachion wrote:
I remember seeing that like 2-3% of people were going to write-in rather than vote for Moore or Jones. Do they get more points for being principled than the people who stay at home or is it all the same?
No. They get the special award for idiots who think politics is about how they feel about themselves.
|
On December 06 2017 07:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Probably to get people not to vote for a pedophile. If I had to guess. There's a lot of baggage that comes with being a pedophile, and you don't want the prestigious position of congressman to be tarred by association with a pedophile, if you have any kind of national pride as a congressman.
These are just spitballs.
Flake is so unpopular that if he wanted Jones to win he should shut up.
On December 06 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:
A vote for Roy Moore is more principled than abstention imo. I can see someone justifying keeping pro-choice people out of the Senate as a big picture hold your nose vote. I wouldn't agree with the principles involved but I could accept that there was a set of principles involved. But abstention on the issue of child molestation? It's not a principled position. Not ever. No set of principles leads you to neutrality there.
I recall hearing that not voting was just as much making a choice as voting, so it's not a large leap to say that not voting can be just as principled as voting.
|
On December 06 2017 07:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:39 zlefin wrote:
Intro:
if you think jones is that bad, I'd question your principles. I don't recall him being so bad as to be unvoteable for. is there something horrific I missed?
I'm certainly willing to believe flake is doing this more as a publicity stunt than out of any actual sincerely held belief in decency.
how people deal with a lesser of two evils situation (not that that's what we're in) is tricky;
not voting is generally more that you oppose the legitimacy of the system itself; and some like GH kinda really do that. are you?
I take it you believe it was wrong to ally stalin to fight hitler? Easiest way to think of it is as a "lesser of two evils with a floor." Following that logic all the way to the bottom doesn't work, but it can be something you examine and account for.
i'd still like an answer on the stalin ally question.
and what did jones do that's SO bad he falls below the floor?
|
On December 06 2017 07:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:34 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 07:27 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Flake's previous actions and statements make this seem like more of stunt, as Danglars and I have discussed before. You have to be a fool to believe Flake's bs. Yeah, it's called being American and voting to keep antisemitic, child molesters out of the Senate. Apparently good conservatives are lack the spine to put county and their fellow Americans before their own beliefs. Glad I finally have that confirmed for me. you do this plansixian reductionism all the time and it's super obnoxious. Also I don't see anything in that other posted statement that was antisemitic. I'd need more context. I'm also a good American if I vote to keep an abortion loving crackpot out of the Senate. See how that logic works? Glad I can clear it up.
Moore is anti anyone who isn't Christian. He hates Jews and Muslims. Anyone with half a brain reads what he writes and realizes this. He also doesn't think women should hold public office. He is a regressive, child molesting peice of shit. I have little patience for people would won't raise a finger to prevent someone like him from gaining power. Your arguments against Jeff Flake show how singular your political views are, victory at all costs. And no one can call themselves a conservative if they do not subscribe to that mantra.
|
On December 06 2017 07:46 zlefin wrote:
hmm, this kidna feels like another deontological vs consequentialist issue.
alot of it though it that from the perspective of how people "feel" about ethical issues, it's far easier to justify (and easier to feel right about) inaction rather than a harmful action which would prevent a greater harm (which is often a decent heuristic, trolley problems rarely appaer so clearly in real life).
It's easy and the idea of "not moving my body means I am not doing something" is comfortable to people who don't want to put the time and effort into sorting through internal moral/ethical issues. But it is intellectually lazy and inadequate.
|
Let's put it in a different context.
If this was a primary battle between Jones and Moore, as a left wing Republican vs Moore in his current state, it wouldn't even be close. There'd be no contest and the GOP would happily throw Moore under the bus in favour of Jones. The only reason that Moore even has a chance is that there's an R next to his name.
|
On December 06 2017 07:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:39 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:34 Plansix wrote:On December 06 2017 07:27 Introvert wrote:On December 06 2017 07:23 Gorsameth wrote:On December 06 2017 07:02 Introvert wrote:This is why people don't like Jeff Flake. Not because he's too principled, no. But because he's willing to jettison his principles to make himself feel good. If you are as conservative as Flake claims to be, how on this earth could you rationalize, not just staying home, but actively supporting someone who is opposed to you? "For the good of the country?" bs. Where is his righteous indignation at people outside his party? Later Flake, your name suits you. Because the other side is a fucking child molester... Flake's previous actions and statements make this seem like more of stunt, as Danglars and I have discussed before. You have to be a fool to believe Flake's bs. Yeah, it's called being American and voting to keep antisemitic, child molesters out of the Senate. Apparently good conservatives are lack the spine to put county and their fellow Americans before their own beliefs. Glad I finally have that confirmed for me. you do this plansixian reductionism all the time and it's super obnoxious. Also I don't see anything in that other posted statement that was antisemitic. I'd need more context. I'm also a good American if I vote to keep an abortion loving crackpot out of the Senate. See how that logic works? Glad I can clear it up. Moore is anti anyone who isn't Christian. He hates Jews and Muslims. Anyone with half a brain reads what he writes and realizes this. He also doesn't think women should hold public office. He is a regressive, child molesting peice of shit. I have little patience for people would won't raise a finger to prevent someone like him from gaining power. Your arguments against Jeff Flake show how singular your political views are, victory at all costs. And no one can call themselves a conservative if they do not subscribe to that mantra.
If that was my philosophy then my posting and voting history would be quite different.
|
On December 06 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:
A vote for Roy Moore is more principled than abstention imo. I can see someone justifying keeping pro-choice people out of the Senate as a big picture hold your nose vote. I wouldn't agree with the principles involved but I could accept that there was a set of principles involved. But abstention on the issue of child molestation? It's not a principled position. Not ever. No set of principles leads you to neutrality there.
"So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."
:D
|
United States44404 Posts
On December 06 2017 07:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:44 NewSunshine wrote:
Probably to get people not to vote for a pedophile. If I had to guess. There's a lot of baggage that comes with being a pedophile, and you don't want the prestigious position of congressman to be tarred by association with a pedophile, if you have any kind of national pride as a congressman.
These are just spitballs. Flake is so unpopular that if he wanted Jones to win he should shut up. Show nested quote +On December 06 2017 07:44 KwarK wrote:
A vote for Roy Moore is more principled than abstention imo. I can see someone justifying keeping pro-choice people out of the Senate as a big picture hold your nose vote. I wouldn't agree with the principles involved but I could accept that there was a set of principles involved. But abstention on the issue of child molestation? It's not a principled position. Not ever. No set of principles leads you to neutrality there. I recall hearing that not voting was just as much making a choice as voting, so it's not a large leap to say that not voting can be just as principled as voting.
You either want Moore to win or you want him to lose. If you abstain you don't want him to lose, because you haven't helped him lose, but you clearly didn't care enough to help him win. It's the "meh, I don't have an issue with child rape or abortion, whatever the outcome is fine" approach.
That's why it's less principled. If your principles lead you to believe that control over the Senate is the more important issue, that's fine, I can understand it, even if I disagree. If your principles believe that the Senate shouldn't include child molesters, again, I can understand it. But not having a preference? Come on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
