Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

GOP Convention

123457»

Replies

  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,802 Senior Member
    I think the stepping in poo is deliberate. It's more about his appeal to the working class and non-elites. It gives more indication he's an outsider. Not saying he is one, but he acts like one. I've come to realize this is all calculated. And it's working. As others have said, he's selling himself. And doing it well.

    He is a master at it, and I think you're right about it being intentional. That's one of the reasons I haven't been discouraged by some of his crass comments about other candidates, and yeah, they all fell one by one.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,561 Senior Member
    Well, with the Cruz deal he's sending a message: wrong me, and I'll hound you. It appeals to folks who think the current administration, and even the Bush admin, were appeasers who didn't fully prosecute the fight. He's showing he'll keep on fighting, and it's attractive to folks who think the US has backed down too much or not followed up on what it should have done.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    I think the stepping in poo is deliberate. It's more about his appeal to the working class and non-elites. It gives more indication he's an outsider. Not saying he is one, but he acts like one. I've come to realize this is all calculated. And it's working. As others have said, he's selling himself. And doing it well.

    Maybe, to some extent, but I still think it's mostly his narcissism. I've had some up close and personal long-term associations with narcissistic types, and they all have one trait in common. Every time they hear someone brag on anyone else, they take it as though it is a negative for themselves, personally. Trump's antics during Cruz's speech caused a huge response from the media and his supporters, to the point that it completely overshadowed Mike Pence's great speech. He has a need to knock down anyone who threatens his limelight. His kids, maybe, are an exception, but he considers them an extension of himself.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Not too late, can watch it online if anyone wants who didn't DVR it.............so put on yer Saturday Night fun drawers and enjoy :jester:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    You make some very valid points about ethics, but you portray them as the alternative to a religion that you have a visceral dislike for. The truth is that ethics exist within religions, just as they do, outside of it. In your world, you can label anyone who draws their wisdom and ethics from the Bible as a 'Christianist,' and that allows you to discount or ignore their ethics.
    No, no, no...

    If you are indeed discussing true ethics, I don't care where they come from. But when it is someone's personal BELIEF or OPINION - I have a problem with that being forced on others. Its just that simple. I'm not trying to portray them as an "alternative" to any given religion - Christianity or otherwise. However, I *AM* trying to portray them as "larger", older, and more universal than ANY religion - yours or mine. The logic used to say we're a "Christian Nation" is flawed because such ethics as we're discussing are found in many places, and many religions - including Christianity. The ethics aren't the problem - it's when other beliefs/opinions peculiar to any one religion - i.e. they're not what I call "Universal Ethics" - it starts being a problem. As in my attempt to illustrate with the "10 Commandments".
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,132 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    No, no, no...

    If you are indeed discussing true ethics, I don't care where they come from. But when it is someone's personal BELIEF or OPINION - I have a problem with that being forced on others. Its just that simple. I'm not trying to portray them as an "alternative" to any given religion - Christianity or otherwise. However, I *AM* trying to portray them as "larger", older, and more universal than ANY religion - yours or mine. The logic used to say we're a "Christian Nation" is flawed because such ethics as we're discussing are found in many places, and many religions - including Christianity. The ethics aren't the problem - it's when other beliefs/opinions peculiar to any one religion - i.e. they're not what I call "Universal Ethics" - it starts being a problem. As in my attempt to illustrate with the "10 Commandments".
    Dude. Please go back to the shallow end. You have no clue how deep you are in over your head right now.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    Not gonna happen.
    I'm holding my nose and pulling the lever. Why waste the time to listen to someone Im already reluctantly voting for?

    It was his best performance/speech to date and yes they are all performances, exhibitions on TV to connect/appeal to viewers and sell yourself for votes. They all do it and will continue to.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    . Funny how the news outlets are beating him up for painting a grim picture. Do these idiots live in the same country I do??? Only the Democrats can look at this wreck of a country and try to blow sunshine up their idiot constituents ass...

    THEY DELIBERATELY LIE. They will do anything to allow the current administration and their supporters to continue robbing this country while we circle the drain.

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    No, no, no...

    If you are indeed discussing true ethics, I don't care where they come from. But when it is someone's personal BELIEF or OPINION - I have a problem with that being forced on others. Its just that simple. I'm not trying to portray them as an "alternative" to any given religion - Christianity or otherwise. However, I *AM* trying to portray them as "larger", older, and more universal than ANY religion - yours or mine. The logic used to say we're a "Christian Nation" is flawed because such ethics as we're discussing are found in many places, and many religions - including Christianity. The ethics aren't the problem - it's when other beliefs/opinions peculiar to any one religion - i.e. they're not what I call "Universal Ethics" - it starts being a problem. As in my attempt to illustrate with the "10 Commandments".

    Well, just to cut through all of the theological and philosophical crap, let's just say that an ethical president would be one who keeps his oath to govern according to the Constitution, as written by its original authors, OR as interpreted by the courts. For example, a president can be unapologetically pro-life and say publicly that he would like to see legislation that would ban abortion, but he does still recognize that it is the law of the land, as established by Roe vs Wade, and will not violate that law. He is, in effect, overruling his personal beliefs to keep the oath of office. We have, so far, had at least three recent presidents that would apply to. All were Christians, all were pro-life, and none of them took direct action to overrule or undermine that law. Therefore, they behaved ethically in that regard.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    I thought the REP convention went pretty darn good. Police/LEOs did a great job too.

    DEM convention should be interesting since Wassermann-Shultz got exposed along with the rest of their party leaders by Wikileaks trying to come up with ways to screw Bernie..................she won't make a speech, preside still up in the air.................
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Plus...............gonna be very HOT outside in the streets, maybe in more ways than one.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    Well, just to cut through all of the theological and philosophical crap, let's just say that an ethical president would be one who keeps his oath to govern according to the Constitution, as written by its original authors, OR as interpreted by the courts. For example, a president can be unapologetically pro-life and say publicly that he would like to see legislation that would ban abortion, but he does still recognize that it is the law of the land, as established by Roe vs Wade, and will not violate that law. He is, in effect, overruling his personal beliefs to keep the oath of office. We have, so far, had at least three recent presidents that would apply to. All were Christians, all were pro-life, and none of them took direct action to overrule or undermine that law. Therefore, they behaved ethically in that regard.

    I will agree with this - its the way it should be. Trouble is, I don't trust those that spout the Christianist rhetoric. It *comes across* the same as Islamist. GWB, for instance, created problems just by opening his mouth. Yea, I'm a little gun shy - 2,000 years of history tends to do that.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    For example, the biggest concern with allowing gay marriage is the slippery slope it creates.

    "Slippery Slope" is indeed a concern.

    We don't like "Slippery slope" in reference to firearms laws as a for instance that we all can agree on. Encoding a given religion into our gov't is another one, the slippery slope is Theocracy - something I consider a very black evil. Our founders knew this. "Under God", and "In God We Trust" wasn't encoded into things until much later. Our national motto is - or at least WAS - "E Pluribus Unum" which is unifying. "In God We Trust" is divisive.

    Now with that said, I don't really have a problem with "Under God" or "In God We Trust" as far as they go - except for the "slippery slope" argument. Now we have those who are ignorant (sometimes willfully) of the when and how we started using these phrases, try to use this as a justification for the "Christian Nation" argument. Doesn't fly with me.

    I understand your concern - and agree with it - regarding the need for cohesiveness. I just don't think religion is the place for it - ethics are. Religion shouldn't be in the public square - its entirely too personal. You'll notice that I type very little of my own beliefs - they're not germane to the conversation for one, and they're personal to me and ONLY me for another. Which can occasionally lead to misunderstandings of course, I'm often accused of atheism and/or "hating my creator", neither or which are even remotely true (That has *NOT* happened on THIS forum, BTW).

    I certainly have no problems with people who say "God Bless" or "Merry Christmas" - I understand the where and how they're "coming from" and accept their blessings in the spirit in which they were intended, and often reply in kind. That's ethics - willful "offense", the tactic of the Liberal, isn't (ethical).

    I have been watching, and studying the Christianist playbook since I was old enough to realize the existence of such thought - well over 40 years now. Discussions like this one help me learn more - and I certainly don't know all the answers! "The only thing that I know, is that I know nothing at all!" is a pertinent quote methinks! There certainly are no easy answers.

    Thank you for a well thought out post.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    This country barely survived the permissiveness bred in the happy, free love, laziness ridden anything goes '60s and we now suffer the aftershocks in the thinking of leaders like Hillary who grew up in that environment and are clinging to the ideals popularized by the Hippies. The new millennials are adopting them quickly, beaming with pride at their disdain for their parents clinging to possessions and the latest one I just heard their "lavish lifestyle". These idiots believe like Hillary that the greater good needs to come at the sacrifice (willing or unwilling) of the masses and adoption of their ideals by agreement or force. They do not understand that the core of greedy bastards that fuels those thoughts will never limit themselves to their self imposed rules and will only use their willingness to go along with the utopia concept to put them all in chains.

    This deserves its own quote back - and I agree somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000 percent! Some of the 60s stuff is OK, most of it is counter productive and EXTREMELY naive - particularly the "Peace at any price" crowd. And yes, MORE of a slippery slope!

    This has been yet another pet **** of mine - I've never brought it up here, but I've blasted on certain Liberal board I was on for awhile.

    My older sister is one of these as she grew up in that time and still espouses much of the hippie-liberal philosophy. Drives me nuts!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,132 Senior Member
    Ok. I just can't deal with this anymore. Zorba-- in the English language, words have meaning-- we just don't randomly assign meanings to words. Ethics is a system of morals. Ethics is also the study of morality. Morals are social values. Codified social values are called laws. The distinction you are making is gibberish and meaningless.

    I have a carrot. It has hair all over, licks its balls, and sniffs the butts of other carrots as a greeting. My carrot likes to make barking noises and chase squirrels. My carrot shakes his butt when he poops in the back yard.

    Am I talking about a carrot (the orange colored root vegetable) or am I calling a dog a carrot and expecting others to do the same? What you are trying to do is the latter. Just to scratch the surface of formal logic-- if the premises are not true, the statement is invalid. You are making an entire argument based on invalid premises. It has no resemblance to logic at all.

    You appear to be from the Moral Objectivist viewpoint that there are certain moral truths that are universal to all mankind. You seem to be arguing against the Moral Objectivist viewpoint that there are certain moral truths that are universal to all mankind. In other words, you and the "Christianists" (another false premise) that you so despise are actually the same. Where you differ is that (I am speculating) you believe these morals come from natural law, while they also believe that they come from natural law (but with a theological voluntarism twist).

    Seriously. Go back to the shallow end. It is much safer there.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Seriously. Go back to the shallow end. It is much safer there.
    Why would I? Its more fun in the deep end.

    (my view of) Ethics really boils down to one fundamental question: Who gets hurt by my action? If I'm not hurting anyone - which is not necessarily the easiest thing to determine - I can do what I want.

    Morals differ in that many of them - not all - but many of them are an attempt to codify behavior that someone, sometime, somewhere finds objectionable, yet at the same time has little or no basis in objective reality. Going back to the 10 commandments again: "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me". This is a moral stricture, not an ethical one. "Thou shalt not kill.", is both a moral stricture AND an ethical one.

    People, far better and knowledgeable than either you or I have been arguing these kinds of things for millennia - and will continue to do so for many more.

    I use these definitions of "morality", "Ethics", "Laws" as I do as I'm trying to illustrate a point. If my definitions do not work for you, that's perfectly OK, but try to understand what I'm trying to say regardless of the semantics. Semantic arguments waste my time and yours. Your carrot analogy is a good one - but you can call it a carrot if you define it ahead of time. Obviously sub-optimal, blah, blah - so re-assign as needed mentally, correct me if you like, but understand what I'm trying to say!

    I enjoy meaningful discourse on these subjects - and to be totally blunt and frank: This forum is one of the VERY FEW places where there are actually people who have the intelligence to grok these kinds of things. You don't have to agree with me (where's the fun in that?), I only ask that you understand what I'm trying to say - however badly I may express it! Try to have a similar conversation on a Liberal board sometime - all you get is a bunch of shrill shrieking! There's very little to none of that here - which is why I feel comfortable with a discussion like this. In the end, I always learn something from such discussions; my own POV is refined - and sometimes changed - through them.

    Its all good Jerm, its all good!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    O.K. Zorba, here's the problem I have when you say you subscribe to ethics as a guide to life. Just saying ethics is saying you like fish without naming the particular fish species.

    Pick your poison and get back to me on which doctrine(s) float your boat.

    Ethics Doctrines:

    Cynicism
    Hedonism
    Stoic
    Pyrrhonian Skepticism,
    Humanism

    Normative Ethics (or Prescriptive Ethics)
    Consequentialism
    Utilitarianism
    Hedonism
    Egoism
    Asceticism
    Altruism

    Deontology
    Divine Command Theory
    Natural Rights Theory
    Categorical Imperative
    Pluralistic Deontology
    Contractarian Ethics

    Virtue Ethics
    Virtue Ethics
    Agent-Based Theories
    Ethics of Care

    Meta-Ethics
    Moral Realism
    Ethical Naturalism
    Ethical Non-Naturalism
    Moral Anti-Realism
    Ethical Subjectivism
    Moral Relativism
    Non-Cognitivism
    Emotivism
    Prescriptivism (or Universal Prescriptivism)
    Expressivism
    Quasi-Realism
    Projectivism
    Moral Nihilism
    Moral Skepticism

    Descriptive Ethics

    Applied Ethics


    Major Doctrines

    Under the heading of Ethics, the major doctrines or theories include:
    Altruism
    Asceticism
    Cognitivism
    Consequentialism
    Cynicism
    Deontology
    Egoism
    Epicureanism
    Ethical Naturalism
    Ethical Non-Naturalism
    Ethical Subjectivism
    Eudaimonism
    Hedonism
    Humanism
    Individualism
    Moral Absolutism
    Moral Anti-Realism
    Moral Nihilism
    Moral Realism
    Moral Relativism
    Moral Skepticism
    Moral Universalism
    Non-Cognitivism
    Utilitarianism
    Virtue Ethics

    And one more not listed: Situational Ethics
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    All them ISMS give me a Schism between my ears.............. :conehead: :yikes: :tooth:


    ism schism

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LEzL9SpS90
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    O.K. Zorba, here's the problem I have when you say you subscribe to ethics as a guide to life. Just saying ethics is saying you like fish without naming the particular fish species.

    Pick your poison and get back to me on which doctrine(s) float your boat.

    To be honest, I have zero idea of the title - I can only (attempt to) describe it! Do you have any idea?
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,132 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Why would I? Its more fun in the deep end.

    (my view of) Ethics really boils down to one fundamental question: Who gets hurt by my action? If I'm not hurting anyone - which is not necessarily the easiest thing to determine - I can do what I want.

    Morals differ in that many of them - not all - but many of them are an attempt to codify behavior that someone, sometime, somewhere finds objectionable, yet at the same time has little or no basis in objective reality. Going back to the 10 commandments again: "Thou shalt not have any Gods before me". This is a moral stricture, not an ethical one. "Thou shalt not kill.", is both a moral stricture AND an ethical one.

    People, far better and knowledgeable than either you or I have been arguing these kinds of things for millennia - and will continue to do so for many more.

    I use these definitions of "morality", "Ethics", "Laws" as I do as I'm trying to illustrate a point. If my definitions do not work for you, that's perfectly OK, but try to understand what I'm trying to say regardless of the semantics. Semantic arguments waste my time and yours. Your carrot analogy is a good one - but you can call it a carrot if you define it ahead of time. Obviously sub-optimal, blah, blah - so re-assign as needed mentally, correct me if you like, but understand what I'm trying to say!
    Just remember that if you still insist on using improper terminology, you are telling me that the neighbor's carrot pooped on your lawn and that you went to the range and shot off a clip of shells out your assault weapon barrel.

    Codifying morals and behaviors is called laws. You are objecting to the codification of morals that conflict with your own beliefs. Christians do the exact same thing. The 10 Commandments are an early example that illustrates a system of laws used to govern a society. Murder is both against the law and immoral. Banging your neighbor's wife is immoral but is not against the law. If you lived somewhere where the 10 Commandments are the law of the land, banging your neighbor's wife would both be against the law and immoral.

    Ethics is the study of and system of morals. An ethic is a moral value. 1+9 never makes 3. You are calling laws "morals" and morals "ethics". You are giving me a headache. Ethics in general-- buy a few books on the subject. Have your mind blown away! You don't know what you don't know and it will help you understand people better.

    Christian Nation? Since our Constitution and Declaration of Independence is basically just plagiarized John Locke, figure it out for yourself....
    http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/locke1689a.pdf
    Christians shouldn't hurt themselves patting themselves on the back though, because there are and have been lots of other governments that (both good and evil) have derived their justification from Christianity.
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,132 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    I can only (attempt to) describe it! Do you have any idea?
    Try Moral Objectivism on for size and see if it fits...
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Our_Morality_A_Defense_of_Moral_Objectivism
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    There are three choices this fall, Trump, Hillary, or run in circles, scream and shout.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    J The 10 Commandments are an early example that illustrates a system of laws used to govern a society. Murder is both against the law and immoral. Banging your neighbor's wife is immoral but is not against the law. If you lived somewhere where the 10 Commandments are the law of the land, banging your neighbor's wife would both be against the law and immoral.
    Thank you for reinforcing my argument.

    The first (Murder) should be illegal as it is unethical. The second (infidelity) should not be, as it is a moral - it only becomes an ethics problem IF the people involved had agreed to something else. That's up to them, not the gov't.

    I think we're in agreement as far as that goes.

    I object when someone - Chrisitanist or not - tries to make the second kind into law.

    -Zorba
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Hey Zorba, you and Wambli can meet in ATHENS and philosophize about Ethics............ :tooth: :roll2: :roll2:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    To be honest, I have zero idea of the title - I can only (attempt to) describe it! Do you have any idea?

    Second year of Psychology we went through most of those and the similarities and differences, if any, between them, and how they shaped the collective psychology of societies. Made my head hurt the whole danged year trying to keep them separate. Nuclear physics and calculus was a piece of cake in comparison.

    What Jerm said about ethics and morals is pretty much spot on. And if you dig into it you realize that it can present the same conundrum as the 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' question.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Try Moral Objectivism on for size and see if it fits...
    https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Our_Morality_A_Defense_of_Moral_Objectivism

    Hmmm....

    Interesting article, although I cannot claim to understand it all.
    Moral objectivism requires only the acceptance of a set of permissibility rules.

    If this is the case, and without conflating ethics for the moment, wouldn't this describe just about everybody?

    My "permissiblity rule" is very simple: Do the least harm. Do the most good. That would depend largely on the given situation and what's going on. Yet that article's definition of situational ethics (Deplored by Plato) doesn't seem to match the "do the most good, do the least harm" that I'm stating here. *shrug* - so small wonder
    Plato didn't like it if that is the definition he worked with.

    Interesting conversation!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 24,190 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    ...if you dig into it you realize that it can present the same conundrum as the 'which came first, the chicken or the egg?' question.

    Snort! Doesn't it though? Small wonder we argue about such things, and have been for centuries. Good point!

    Another definition I read somewhere: Ethics are "Who gets hurt?", Morals are "Who gets offended?". An oversimplification of course, but there is some truth to this as well.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • FlashoverFlashover Member Posts: 390 Member
    All of it is too deep for my brain..I just simply live by a quote made by John Wayne in a movie which pretty much sums it all up “I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.”
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 16,132 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Hmmm....

    Interesting article, although I cannot claim to understand it all.



    If this is the case, and without conflating ethics for the moment, wouldn't this describe just about everybody?
    And that is the author's argument. you can start narrowing it down from there.
    zorba wrote:
    My "permissiblity rule" is very simple: Do the least harm. Do the most good. That would depend largely on the given situation and what's going on. Yet that article's definition of situational ethics (Deplored by Plato) doesn't seem to match the "do the most good, do the least harm" that I'm stating here. *shrug* - so small wonder
    "Do the least harm, do the most good" you may want to look to Utilitarianism....
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it.
    -Thomas Paine
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement