|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I don't want Trump to die because of COVID but I wouldn't mind seeing him have to be rushed to an emergency room, placed in an ICU, etc, so that he gets a taste of what he allowed to be unleashed on this country.
Having had it myself back in February, it was the sickest I had ever gotten from anything. Fever for 6 days, a painful cough for 12, out of work for 14 days, and the cough persisted for 3 weeks more after I was "recovered". Losing taste and smell was weird to experience too. Mind you, I'm a personal trainer in his late 20s that eats exactly like whatever stereotype of 'clean' eating you have in your head, trains 5-6 days a week, gets around 10k steps a day, and sleeps no less than 8 hours a night. Whenever I think of my own experience, it makes total sense to me that people with Trump's implied low levels of health could die.
Still, he better live so that the dream of seeing him in prison could become reality.
|
Ivanka and Jared tested negative, and so did Kamala Harris. Still waiting on testing results for Joe and Jill Biden.
It's pretty well known now that most of the White House staffers and Trump's inner circle had issues with mask wearing and were rarely seen with them on. There was concern a few months ago that the White House was transforming into a hot spot for transmissions because so little was being done to minimize it. At the least I hope this is a wake up call for vigilance across everyone and to drastically shift their habits on COVID if even the president can contract it.
|
I'm still so worried Biden will have gotten it from the debate. But the timelines I am looking at make it unlikely Trump was particularly contagious at the debate.
Also, the theater around "never wish death on anyone" is completely absurd. Perhaps it shows the complete lack of philosophical development by most people. If you in any way support having a military in any form, you directly support the idea of some people dying under some circumstances. Right before our military shoots someone, the hope is that the person dies. When we send a bomb at a village, we are generally hoping the terrorist and their family dies. Wanting a military and then hiding behind platitudes like "never wish death on anyone" is total bullshit. Absolute pacifism is the only philosophy consistent with "never wish death on anyone".
|
Individual volition and its relation to the acts of institutions over which one has questionable influence are not cut and dry moral problems, though they can seem that way based on a purely consequentialist view.
|
On October 03 2020 00:23 farvacola wrote:
Individual volition and its relation to the acts of institutions over which one has questionable influence are not cut and dry moral problems, though they can seem that way based on a purely consequentialist view.
If someone supports the idea of having a military in any form, they consent to the idea that death may end up being a part of that. That means they are saying there are times when death is appropriate and they wish to create a situation where that decision is made. Unless you are saying there are people with their heads so deep in the sand they think they'll have a purely non-violent military.
In essence, military personnel are forced to carry the burden alone. They are the ones who have to grasp with what it means to kill someone while Joe Shmoe jacks himself off, telling himself he's so ethical for never supporting killing. Joe Shmoe lives in a fairy tale that isn't actually real and it forces the people on the ground to be alone in their struggle. A society that consents to a military consents to the idea of killing.
|
You're presuming that "support[ing] the idea" is a morally substantive act that bears the weight of that idea's logical and actual implications, but if the morally unjustifiable acts of violence would occur regardless of whether one "supports the idea" of a thing that causes those acts, then the import and shape of "support" changes. The moral import of holding a particular belief depends on the moral framework used, and therein lies a lot of differentiation.
Is it inconsistent to acknowledge the importance of a strong US military, yet condemn an individual's hope that someone specific is harmed? Maybe so, but I'd wager that literally everyone holds inconsistent beliefs if that's the test we're using.
|
On October 02 2020 20:55 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 20:30 Slydie wrote:
I can't see any good reason to lie about catching Covid. Trump was bragging shamelessly about a previous negative test, and I can't see how going in quarantine and showing "weakness" by testing positive can be beneficial for his campaign. I doubt he can get many pity votes.
Maybe some evil plot about him magically recovering without any symptoms, but even that seems far fetched, and if he indeed gets sick, that theory goes out the window. There were never any good reasons for Trump lying, except to lie so much that people lose track of all the lies, and somehow then all the lies aren't a problem anymore.
It's like collecting all of the Hearts and the Queen of Spades in Hearts.
|
On October 03 2020 00:38 farvacola wrote:
You're presuming that "support[ing] the idea" is a morally substantive act that bears the weight of that idea's logical and actual implications, but if the morally unjustifiable acts of violence would occur regardless of whether one "supports the idea" of a thing that causes those acts, then the import and shape of "support" changes. If nothing an individual says or believes changes actual outcomes, then the moral import of holding a particular belief depends on the moral framework used, and therein lies a lot of differentiation.
Is it inconsistent to acknowledge the importance of a strong US military, yet condemn an individual's hope that someone is harmed? Maybe so, but I'd wager that literally everyone holds inconsistent beliefs if that's the test we're using.
I don't see why it is relevant for people to hold inconsistent beliefs. I'm not saying "and so they should go to hell", I am saying "and so they are telling themselves they are 'more ethical' than they really are". People like to pretend they hold Disney'esque senses of ethics and it simply isn't true. People can generally have inconsistent beliefs and it is still true. We should always have the fullest understanding of our own beliefs as possible. When people say "never wish death on anyone", but also consent to the existence of a military, they are expressing inconsistent beliefs and I think they ought to decide. People grow and become better versions of themselves when they try to determine their actual ethics. We shouldn't feel discouraged from doing that and we also shouldn't shrug and say "everyone holds some amount of inconsistent beliefs, so I shouldn't make peace with this specific inconsistency". We always benefit from wrestling with ourselves.
|
On October 03 2020 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm still so worried Biden will have gotten it from the debate. But the timelines I am looking at make it unlikely Trump was particularly contagious at the debate.
Also, the theater around "never wish death on anyone" is completely absurd. Perhaps it shows the complete lack of philosophical development by most people. If you in any way support having a military in any form, you directly support the idea of some people dying under some circumstances. Right before our military shoots someone, the hope is that the person dies. When we send a bomb at a village, we are generally hoping the terrorist and their family dies. Wanting a military and then hiding behind platitudes like "never wish death on anyone" is total bullshit. Absolute pacifism is the only philosophy consistent with "never wish death on anyone".
It's a good idea on the subject of politeness not to wish death on other people. Once you accept some deductive logic can override normal rules for politeness, you enter a slippery slope. Trump himself relies on a form of this logic when demeaning political enemies.
I hope you'll be able to separate in the future rules that you observe for yourself, regardless of other evil in the world. Or put yourself in the subject here, so instead of wishing death on others, others were wishing death on you.
|
I would rather Trump be defeated at the election than by Covid.
|
On October 03 2020 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2020 00:38 farvacola wrote:
You're presuming that "support[ing] the idea" is a morally substantive act that bears the weight of that idea's logical and actual implications, but if the morally unjustifiable acts of violence would occur regardless of whether one "supports the idea" of a thing that causes those acts, then the import and shape of "support" changes. If nothing an individual says or believes changes actual outcomes, then the moral import of holding a particular belief depends on the moral framework used, and therein lies a lot of differentiation.
Is it inconsistent to acknowledge the importance of a strong US military, yet condemn an individual's hope that someone is harmed? Maybe so, but I'd wager that literally everyone holds inconsistent beliefs if that's the test we're using. I don't see why it is relevant for people to hold inconsistent beliefs. I'm not saying "and so they should go to hell", I am saying "and so they are telling themselves they are 'more ethical' than they really are". People like to pretend they hold Disney'esque senses of ethics and it simply isn't true. People can generally have inconsistent beliefs and it is still true. We should always have the fullest understanding of our own beliefs as possible. When people say "never wish death on anyone", but also consent to the existence of a military, they are expressing inconsistent beliefs and I think they ought to decide. People grow and become better versions of themselves when they try to determine their actual ethics. We shouldn't feel discouraged from doing that and we also shouldn't shrug and say "everyone holds some amount of inconsistent beliefs, so I shouldn't make peace with this specific inconsistency". We always benefit from wrestling with ourselves.
The point is that your certainty that folks who show what looks like support for the military who also maintain that one should never wish death on anyone are not "more ethical" is itself a moral stance that has no inherent superiority to other views, certainly not because you can show a plausible chain of association that turns on the unsettled import of support relative to belief. If inconsistency isn't at issue here, why is your view couched in logical inevitability?
|
On October 03 2020 00:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2020 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm still so worried Biden will have gotten it from the debate. But the timelines I am looking at make it unlikely Trump was particularly contagious at the debate.
Also, the theater around "never wish death on anyone" is completely absurd. Perhaps it shows the complete lack of philosophical development by most people. If you in any way support having a military in any form, you directly support the idea of some people dying under some circumstances. Right before our military shoots someone, the hope is that the person dies. When we send a bomb at a village, we are generally hoping the terrorist and their family dies. Wanting a military and then hiding behind platitudes like "never wish death on anyone" is total bullshit. Absolute pacifism is the only philosophy consistent with "never wish death on anyone". It's a good idea on the subject of politeness not to wish death on other people. Once you accept some deductive logic can override normal rules for politeness, you enter a slippery slope. Trump himself relies on a form of this logic when demeaning political enemies. I hope you'll be able to separate in the future rules that you observe for yourself, regardless of other evil in the world. Or put yourself in the subject here, so instead of wishing death on others, others were wishing death on you.
I completely agree on the topic of politeness. And especially for people in positions of power, actively, publicly wishing for death basically makes society crumble to pieces. I see that as being entirely distinct from people who pretend they actually would never wish for someone to die and then feel a sense of pride in having that belief. My point is that the pride is not "earned" if they still support any conceivable situation where someone's life is taken. Complete pacifism is the only way to hold that view.
And part of my point is that "never wishing death on anyone" is a silly platitude because you would absolutely wish death on someone invading your home. If I saw some dude assaulting my wife, I would not see value in never wishing death on someone. No one should see value in it as an ethical belief. But it is clearly super important for politicians and cultural figures.
|
You should be more open to the fact that other people hold wildly different views on morality, I absolutely know people who consider killing a home invader wrong, though it's true that only a very tiny minority believe so in absolute terms.
|
Inconsistency is the issue here. People have an inconsistent belief set when they "never wish death on anyone" and also support a military since a military will often kill people. Similarly, police will sometimes kill people as a factor of their job.
I wish death on people fairly often. For example, pedophiles, mass murderers, serial killers, fascists, racists. I don't bury it behind the "never wish death on anyone" platitude.
|
On October 03 2020 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
Also, the theater around "never wish death on anyone" is completely absurd.
It's very much possible to wish death on someone, especially a public figure, while being polite enough to say that you'd "never wish death on them" all the same. How common that is or isn't is absolutely up to interpretation, but it's very much a cultural taboo to openly state a death wish.
|
On October 03 2020 00:52 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2020 00:43 Mohdoo wrote:On October 03 2020 00:38 farvacola wrote:
You're presuming that "support[ing] the idea" is a morally substantive act that bears the weight of that idea's logical and actual implications, but if the morally unjustifiable acts of violence would occur regardless of whether one "supports the idea" of a thing that causes those acts, then the import and shape of "support" changes. If nothing an individual says or believes changes actual outcomes, then the moral import of holding a particular belief depends on the moral framework used, and therein lies a lot of differentiation.
Is it inconsistent to acknowledge the importance of a strong US military, yet condemn an individual's hope that someone is harmed? Maybe so, but I'd wager that literally everyone holds inconsistent beliefs if that's the test we're using. I don't see why it is relevant for people to hold inconsistent beliefs. I'm not saying "and so they should go to hell", I am saying "and so they are telling themselves they are 'more ethical' than they really are". People like to pretend they hold Disney'esque senses of ethics and it simply isn't true. People can generally have inconsistent beliefs and it is still true. We should always have the fullest understanding of our own beliefs as possible. When people say "never wish death on anyone", but also consent to the existence of a military, they are expressing inconsistent beliefs and I think they ought to decide. People grow and become better versions of themselves when they try to determine their actual ethics. We shouldn't feel discouraged from doing that and we also shouldn't shrug and say "everyone holds some amount of inconsistent beliefs, so I shouldn't make peace with this specific inconsistency". We always benefit from wrestling with ourselves. The point is that your certainty that folks who show what looks like support for the military who also maintain that one should never wish death on anyone are not "more ethical" is itself a moral stance that has no inherent superiority to other views, certainly not because you can show a plausible chain of association that turns on the unsettled import of support relative to belief. If inconsistency isn't at issue here, why is your view couched in logical inevitability?
Can you reword this? I have no idea what this means but I'd like to continue this discussion.
|
On October 02 2020 21:32 farvacola wrote:
I don't think there's any way that this helps Trump, so I don't mind how it shakes out specifically.
It does make all the focus about him, yet not about his tax returns and proud boys comments. He could come out in a few days saying it was a false positive and get right back to campaigning. I don't think this is likely but it's not outside the bounds of reason considering all the stunts he has pulled.
|
On October 03 2020 00:56 farvacola wrote:
You should be more open to the fact that other people hold wildly different views on morality, I absolutely know people who consider killing a home invader wrong, though it's true that only a very tiny minority believe so in absolute terms.
Of course I know that is true. There are pacifists, of course. And for the record, I am strictly against all forms of retribution justice. No one should ever be punished in a way that doesn't prevent further harm. My point was more so that I would prioritize saving my wife's life and risk killing an assaulter if the situation were spit second.
In my eyes, death/killing is amazingly rarely appropriate. And for people to hold different views does not mean those views, through analysis, would end up being considered either equal, better or worse than my own. There is no guarantee that a set of beliefs holds up to a group's dialectic. But we should constantly tear as many beliefs apart as we can to improve our own ethical understanding.
On October 03 2020 01:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2020 00:18 Mohdoo wrote:
Also, the theater around "never wish death on anyone" is completely absurd. It's very much possible to wish death on someone, especially a public figure, while being polite enough to say that you'd "never wish death on them" all the same. How common that is or isn't is absolutely up to interpretation, but it's very much a cultural taboo to openly state a death wish.
I agree with all of this. And I think the cultural taboo comes from the fact that it is ***SUPER*** important that leaders don't wish for people's death, because sociology is weird and a loud voice can create a lot of violence and conflict.
My basic thought is that people should examine whether they truly hold that belief, as some genuinely seem to, based on my experiences, or if it is just kinda "thoughts and prayers". We all benefit when we examine things.
|
There's a sort of quandary in that Trump getting better will harm a lot more people so hoping for his recovery is indirectly threatening those people.
|
On October 03 2020 01:16 GreenHorizons wrote:
There's a sort of quandary in that Trump getting better will harm a lot more people so hoping for his recovery is indirectly threatening those people.
This is the premise from which I ended up building my disdain for "never wish death on anyone".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
