Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Discussion > Religion & Philosophy
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Religion & Philosophy Discuss More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials at the General Discussion; Originally Posted by AZRWinger I note you have yet to respond to my reply to your question about what morals ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2017, 07:22 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,619
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,309 Times in 9,280 Posts
Post Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I note you have yet to respond to my reply to your question about what morals you had to sacrifice to vote for Hillary. The simple answer is you have no morals to sacrifice in the first place, just like Hillary.
What question?
Refresh my memory.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I am not going to rise to your trolling ...
You aren't kidding anybody.
Your responses are habitually trolling attempts to derail the topic and obfuscate into personal attacks you refuse to back up and non-sequiturs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I am not going to rise to your trolling by arguing about which of your dishonest edits created straw men. That would presuppose editing other people's comments is justified under some circumstances. It is not. It is a morally reprehensible act.
YOU CLAIMED I partially quote people in order to dishonestly edit to create straw men.
Yet you lack the moral integrity to post even a single example of that...

Cause you can't.

As I have said, over and over again, the only reason I edit is to show exactly what I am responding to.
There is no dishonest changing in your message involved.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Instead of condoning the practice of editing other people's comments why don't you try to keep up with the discussion. The comment was in response to the question of what morals did Found it have to give up to vote for Hillary? The answer is, none. Giving up morals requires having them in the first place.
The stupid part is the same argument could be posed changing the name "Hillary" to "Donald Trump".
These mindless antics are meaningless slurs that warrant no intelligible response. There is a phrase about throwing pearls before swine ...

YOU CLAIMED I partially quote in order to change the message.
Yet you refuse to provide even a single example of that...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2017, 07:23 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 13,072
Thanks: 11,206
Thanked 9,337 Times in 5,773 Posts
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
One thing you should understand is that just because you have two options that suck doesn't mean that you suck for having to choose between them...
Or, to expand, it doesn't mean that you are "sacrificing your integrity, common sense, personal values and morals"
Bold by me.

Right there is your falsehood. YOU chose to choose between two candidates. There were other choices. Therefore, you did choose to sacrifice your integrity, common sense, personal values and morals' by voting for the 'lesser of evils'.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2017, 07:25 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,619
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,309 Times in 9,280 Posts
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
Bold by me.
Right there is your falsehood. YOU chose to choose between two candidates. There were other choices. Therefore, you did choose to sacrifice your integrity, common sense, personal values and morals' by voting for the 'lesser of evils'.
I've already been through this, but I'll repeat...

For a parallel, consider somebody tells you that they are either going to:
a) punch you in the face and the chest, or
b) punch you in the kidney and kick you in the groin.

Both are assault. Both are "evil".
No matter what you choose, one of them is going to happen.

Would you tell the person that you choose option c of no assault occurs even recognizing that you do have a preference and c is not going to be chosen?
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to foundit66 For This Useful Post:
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 10-07-2017, 07:30 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 13,072
Thanks: 11,206
Thanked 9,337 Times in 5,773 Posts
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I've already been through this, but I'll repeat...

For a parallel, consider somebody tells you that they are either going to:
a) punch you in the face and the chest, or
b) punch you in the kidney and kick you in the groin.

Both are assault. Both are "evil".
No matter what you choose, one of them is going to happen.

Would you tell the person that you choose option c of no assault occurs even recognizing that you do have a preference and c is not going to be chosen?
You are creating false parameters, because there were more choices than just the two YOU felt you had to vote for.

That's not a parallel because the conditions you are assuming didn't exist.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you don't laugh at yourself, a whole bunch of people will volunteer to do it for you
I never lose. I either win, or I learn....
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GottaGo For This Useful Post:
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 10-08-2017, 08:24 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: PNW
Gender: Male
Posts: 70,513
Thanks: 22,404
Thanked 18,921 Times in 13,936 Posts
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
I may have not explained myself clearly. What I mean is, I think most evangelicals (in fact most PEOPLE) don't see LEADERSHIP and what it takes to lead the country in such black and white terms. They know it's more complicated than that. Obviously they do, because this story bears it out.
What you mean is that you can't really explain why we should support Trump
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 10-08-2017, 08:51 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 18,161
Thanks: 11,554
Thanked 12,356 Times in 7,275 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
It would be more proper to say it was not neutral of the Democrat party. Complaining that they weren't "Democratic" would rely on (for example) showing how votes were changed to undermine democracy.
And I agree they f***ed up. Wasserman was forced to step down.
I'll happily admit both Clinton & Trump have serious morality problems.
We are in agreement there.



What morals did I abandon in order to vote for Clinton?

There is a joke that says "politics" is made of two words.
"Poly", which means many.
"tics", which means blood sucking creature.

There aren't many votes out there that don't involve weighing the pros and cons of candidates.

This thread is about "immorality" being "disqualifying for elected officials".
Everybody has their own standards for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
What question?
Refresh my memory.



You aren't kidding anybody.
Your responses are habitually trolling attempts to derail the topic and obfuscate into personal attacks you refuse to back up and non-sequiturs.



YOU CLAIMED I partially quote people in order to dishonestly edit to create straw men.
Yet you lack the moral integrity to post even a single example of that...

Cause you can't.

As I have said, over and over again, the only reason I edit is to show exactly what I am responding to.
There is no dishonest changing in your message involved.



The stupid part is the same argument could be posed changing the name "Hillary" to "Donald Trump".
These mindless antics are meaningless slurs that warrant no intelligible response. There is a phrase about throwing pearls before swine ...

YOU CLAIMED I partially quote in order to change the message.
Yet you refuse to provide even a single example of that...
See the bold question in the first of your comments. Once again you conveniently forget what you wrote earlier. This happens so often and is used to avoid discussion that it cannot be anything but dishonesty. Certainly you did not have to "sacrifice" honesty to vote for Hillary.

Again you admit to editing other people's comments but claim that it is OK for you to do it because we ought to trust you not to create straw men. In the past you have claimed you did this because you weren't going to respond to parts of my comments that you judged "irrelevant" or "false" subjective, dishonest judgements on your part.

Now you attempt to sanitize your dishonest practice with the excuse that you are just trying to show the specific parts of my comments you are responding to. Yet as shown above you consistently chop up comment text to insert your drivel. It takes brazen moral bankruptcy to make this dishonest a claim to hide your editing other people's comments. I am not going to descend into your morality free nether region where the dishonesty of editing other people's comments has to be illustrated with examples to be fought over before the next comment is chopped up into another straw man.

I note that you are seemingly incapable of recognizing the moral wrong of editing other people's comments in your replies. Instead, you demand I show you where your editing has done harm as if there are instances where it is moral to substitute your subjective judgement for comment text as if the practice is acceptable if you do it.
__________________
What is a 30 something year old single man with a rock in one hand and a Honduran flag in the other?

An asylum seeker.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 10-08-2017, 02:30 PM
Bat Bat is offline
Hinged
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 74
Thanked 1,224 Times in 739 Posts
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
One thing you should understand is that just because you have two options that suck doesn't mean that you suck for having to choose between them...
Or, to expand, it doesn't mean that you are "sacrificing your integrity, common sense, personal values and morals"
One thing you should understand is that it means exactly that.
Justification for abhorrent action breeds abhorrent action.
History shows that every genocide followed that path.

You didn't have two options; you had at least three options.
I chose option three, which was to vote for neither. Only your limited mind also limited your choices to two.
So yes, you suck for ignoring the other options beyond the two that you thought were the only two.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 10-08-2017, 02:50 PM
Bat Bat is offline
Hinged
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,817
Thanks: 74
Thanked 1,224 Times in 739 Posts
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
I've already been through this, but I'll repeat...

For a parallel, consider somebody tells you that they are either going to:
a) punch you in the face and the chest, or
b) punch you in the kidney and kick you in the groin.

Both are assault. Both are "evil".
No matter what you choose, one of them is going to happen.

Would you tell the person that you choose option c of no assault occurs even recognizing that you do have a preference and c is not going to be chosen?
Your analogy continues to be predicated upon the acceptance of irrational, ridiculous, and idiocy.
If your proposed situation actually existed, there are other options:
c) Run away
d) Fight back
e) Bribery
f-z) all the other options I didn't point out to your foolish analogy

The presidential election had more than 2 options for the voters. You are trying to justify your vote for a bad candidate by using incredibly idiotic analogy.
I sleep well at night knowing that I had the intestinal fortitude to not vote for crap smeared on white bread vs crap smeared on whole wheat bread.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bat For This Useful Post:
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:21 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,619
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,309 Times in 9,280 Posts
Post Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by GottaGo View Post
You are creating false parameters, because there were more choices than just the two YOU felt you had to vote for.

That's not a parallel because the conditions you are assuming didn't exist.
Read what I wrote...
I'm bold-facing the part you may have glossed over...


For a parallel, consider somebody tells you that they are either going to:
a) punch you in the face and the chest, or
b) punch you in the kidney and kick you in the groin.

Both are assault. Both are "evil".
No matter what you choose, one of them is going to happen.

Would you tell the person that you choose option c of no assault occurs even recognizing that you do have a preference and c is not going to be chosen?

So yeah. You have the option of saying "I choose c) Neither" I'm acknowledging that option exists.
But the reality is that you're going to get either a) or b).
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 10-09-2017, 04:27 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,619
Thanks: 10,112
Thanked 15,309 Times in 9,280 Posts
Default Re: More Americans Say Personal Immorality Not Disqualifying for Elected Officials

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
One thing you should understand is that just because you have two options that suck doesn't mean that you suck for having to choose between them...
Or, to expand, it doesn't mean that you are "sacrificing your integrity, common sense, personal values and morals"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat View Post
One thing you should understand is that it means exactly that.
Justification for abhorrent action breeds abhorrent action.
History shows that every genocide followed that path.
So take "Sophie's choice" as an example:
"Sophie's Choice" is centered on a scene in Auschwitz where Sophie has just arrived with her ten-year old son and her seven-year old daughter and a sadistic doctor, presumably Doctor Mengele, tells her that she can only bring one of her children; one will be allowed to live while the other is to be killed.
So what you are saying is that if Sophie chooses, that makes her evil / immoral / whatever negative adjective you want to insert here?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat View Post
You didn't have two options; you had at least three options.
I chose option three, which was to vote for neither. Only your limited mind also limited your choices to two.
So yes, you suck for ignoring the other options beyond the two that you thought were the only two.
That's your opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat
Your analogy continues to be predicated upon the acceptance of irrational, ridiculous, and idiocy.
If your proposed situation actually existed, there are other options:
c) Run away
d) Fight back
e) Bribery
f-z) all the other options I didn't point out to your foolish analogy
But it's a real representation of reality.

No matter who you voted for, you were only ever going to get Hillary or Trump.
That's a fact.

So regardless of which c -> z option you chose, the result was always only ever going to be either a) or b).
That is why my analogy is more appropriate to the actual situation as opposed to you trying to reinvent reality.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bat
The presidential election had more than 2 options for the voters. You are trying to justify your vote for a bad candidate by using incredibly idiotic analogy.
I sleep well at night knowing that I had the intestinal fortitude to not vote for crap smeared on white bread vs crap smeared on whole wheat bread.

But in the end, it only comes down to you getting one or the other.
Your futile gesture may have felt good. And I imagine you have some inflated sense of superiority because you went that route.
But you've got the same crap smeared bread as the rest of us...
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
americans, disqualifying, elected, for, immorality, more, not, officials, personal, say

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0