Romney vs. Obama

[JPhantom]

the point in voting for a 3rd party candidate is of course not to cause that candidate to win the election that would be absurd. The point is to help that candidate gain a significant enough support that one or both of the parties decide to adopt the candidates positions into their party platform to entice the candidate's supporters to vote for them in a future election

the most significant and important change to the election process that is desperately needed would be to implement a None of The Above option on the ballot for all elections. Those of you familiar with the movie Brewster's Millions know what I am talking about(great movie by the way watch it if you hadn't seen it). If None of the Above were to win the election then a new election would have to be held in a timely manner and none of the people who had run in the previous election would be able to run in the new one. To prevent an indefinite gridlock where no one is elected we might gradually raise the percentage required for None of the Above to win. What do you guys think?

 

[Foxi4]

Piracy isn't clearly right, or wrong.

Yeah, it is. You're acquiring software/multimedia without owning the license for it, and you're doing so over an unofficial channel without paying royalties to the creator. It's not theft per se, but it is a felony. There's no "grey area" here to speak of - it's wrong, point. It's a minor offense, but it's an offense none the less.

Is ra.pe right or is it wrong? I might have my own opinion and my own morality about ra.pe, and someone else might have theirs, but do you honestly believe every single opinion/morality is just as valid and worth just as much as any other, including those that think ra.pe is totally fabulous and morally right?

Nobody asks you about your personal morality - those things are regulated by law, which in turn is created to reflect the moral standards of the majority and is made to protect citizens.

Can opinions/morality truly never ever be judged?

Anything can be judged.

I've for a very long time believed that to be the case, but not anymore; there is actually some objectivity in judging opinions/morality based on logical reasoning, and not all of them are equally valid.

Morality isn't necessarily logical - it's a social construct. For example, beheading a fellow human being is a felony, beheading a dog is a felony, but beheading a chicken is simply a part of preparing it for consumption. Similarily, eating pork is perfectly fine, however eating a cat would be considered animal cruelty even though they're both animals, hell, they're even both mammals. Morality isn't and never was logical - our rules of morality are constructed by the society we live in, and the laws which govern said society should reflect that.

 

[leic7]

Yeah, it is. You're acquiring software/multimedia without owning the license for it, and you're doing so over an unofficial channel without paying royalties to the creator. It's not theft per se, but it is a felony. There's no "grey area" here to speak of - it's wrong, point. It's a minor offense, but it's an offense none the less.Nobody asks you about your personal morality - those things are regulated by law, which in turn is created to reflect the moral standards of the majority and is made to protect citizens.Anything can be judged.Morality isn't necessarily logical - it's a social construct. For example, beheading a fellow human being is a felony, beheading a dog is a felony, but beheading a chicken is simply a part of preparing it for consumption. Similarily, eating pork is perfectly fine, however eating a cat would be considered animal cruelty even though they're both animals, hell, they're even both mammals. Morality isn't and never was logical - our rules of morality are constructed by the society we live in, and the laws which govern said society should reflect that.

Er, are you aware that there has been an exchange on the subject of morality in the last few posts, before I posted my reply to the quoted piece from the exchange? The incoherence in your response makes it seem like you've no clue about what the person I quoted had said, nor about the line of thought I was deliberating.

On what basis do we consider something "right" and "wrong"? If you would answer "the law" then please say so right now. Or if you'd answer "whatever the majority says", say so too.

Morality is a social construct, but what kind of social construct is it, exactly? Are there no right or wrong answers to the question, Is this good for the well-being of society? Is everything equally good (or equally bad) for the well-being of society? Is there absolutely no logical, objective basis, by which social constructs such as these can be judged and valued, even partially?

This is the fallacy:
A and B are both social constructs, A is arbitrary/illogical/invalid; therefore, B is equally artibrary/illogical/invalid.
Some social constructs are arbitrary/illogical/invalid; therefore, all social constructs are arbitrary/illogical/invalid.

 

[Gahars]

My university held a debate tonight between Karl Rove and Robert Gibbs on the presidential campaign, the state of the race, the impact of Super PACs, and so on. It was pretty interesting to take in, and the two had a pretty good back-and-forth chemistry going on.

Unfortunately, Delaware is far from a battleground state, so we won't be seeing any campaign stops from either camp.

Dems, you've got a 25% lead right now, fine, but you can never be too sure, right?

 

[Vinnymac]

What about the other parties or not voting? This poll sucks.

 

[KingVamp]

Check this out.

 

[Deleted-185407]

I never once said that.

I never said that either. I also never said that something is inherently moral just because I think it's moral; that would make me a god.

You're failing to understand that you're arguing that in any particular case, something like murder is only immoral because a particular culture says it's immoral, and you're arguing that states should be left to do blatantly immoral things because morality is relative. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing Hitler's moral views are just as logically valid as your own moral views. If we establish a definition of "moral," then it's possible to logically quantify what's moral and what's immoral in a way that's not relative, and that's ignoring for now all the biological predispositions to objective morality. For example, we can logically establish that legalizing gay marriage a.) Does not violate anyone's rights, b.) Stops a particular group from having their rights from being violated, c.) Has no more negative consequences than heterosexual marriage, and d.) Has known positive consequences like psychological health.

When it comes down to it, any moral question can be summarized by asking whose rights are more important. For example, in the completely obvious moral question of whether or not murder should be legal, we can logically deduce that the rights of Person A not to be murdered outweighs Person B's right to murder Person A. There's nothing relative about it once we've established a definition to what it means to be moral. Although I disagree with Sam Harris on a number of things, I highly recommend his book The Moral Landscape, because you're basically arguing that morality does not exist, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't find that unsettling.

As I've already noted once before, your entire premise (that it's immoral for the federal government to dictate social policy to the states) is completely debunked by your view that morality is completely subjective. Now let's see if you actually offer a rebuttal to my points or completely ignore them again.

That doesn't mean everyone is right.

Nope, I never said that. Do I think my opinions on morality are right? Yes, I do. Do I think my opinions on morality are right because my opinion is the only opinion that matters? No, not at all. Are my moral views subject to change based on the evidence? Absolutely, but just because my moral views are subject to change based on evidence doesn't mean morality is subjective; there's a difference between being right or wrong about something and that something being relative.

Based on what we know about Iran, it's difficult to argue that the potential and the likelihood for negative repercussions aren't there. We know about Iran's relationships with terrorism, for example, and that's enough to be cautious. Are you arguing that we should throw caution to the wind?

Nor am I arguing that they're capable of having a nuclear weapon right now.

You're going to have to be more specific when you say "threat," because unlike morality, whether or not X is a threat is relative depending on what you're saying X is a threat to. If you're arguing that the United States has the power to cause destruction with nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. Haha.

Proof of what, that a nuclear Iran has potential negative consequences? See my post above about Iran and the Middle East. Please keep in mind that I merely have to demonstrate the potentiality for negative consequences in order to be justified in saying we should be cautious/strategic regarding a nuclear Iran.

Could you please show me what you're specifically referring to? Because the fact that Israel is concerned about a nuclear Iran is reason enough for the United States to be concerned about it as well.

You're deluding yourself if you think that's all we've said about the subject. Pretending for a second that all we said was, "We live in an international world so we should at least look at the issue of a nuclear Iran and weigh our options," that would be a completely logical statement.

Nor did I claim that you made that claim. So what?

When you consider the electorate in your calculations of what counts and what doesn't count, a vote for someone who isn't one of the two major-party candidates counts about as much as a write-in for "Mickey Mouse."

Of course I can, especially when they each have an equal change of winning the election.

And as I've stated numerous times, as far as a vote counting towards who wins the presidential election, a vote for someone who cannot win is a vote that doesn't count towards who wins the presidential election. That's not to say that the vote doesn't literally count towards the numerical total of votes cast.

You're still trying to enforce your moral opinions. You're entitled to try prove that your moral point is correct, but like I've already explained, you're not necessarily correct, and other people are entitled to their opinions. There's no set definition of what is moral, that's the whole point of morals. They're personal, and always will be personal. Yet, you want to promote a dictatorship using your moral standards. It doesn't matter what you've said directly, that's what you're implying. Let's take Foxi4's example, we have moral issues with killing humans, yet we have no issues about killing small creatures. Why is that? Don't small little creatures have their rights as well? Obviously a lot of people are going to say yes they do, you might say they don't. By the way, the NDAA violates the person's right to a trial, yet that has been signed into federal law.

So letting the states do what they please is the perfect solution. You're allowing social issues to be dealt with locally. Should Ireland deal with the French social issues? Should Italy deal with the German social issues? One state lives miles away from another state, and therefore will have grown up differently and therefore will have different morals, just like two different countries in the EU. You're saying, we should hope that the federal government is moral. But what if they're not? There's no evidence to suggest that they're moral, and that the states aren't. Is the Irish government immoral while the EU is moral? The Irish people should deal with our local social issues, while the states should deal with their local state issues. Like I said before, if you have that little faith in your state's government, vote them out. As the NDAA proved, the federal government is immoral and not at all trustworthy.

Democracy can be a funny thing sometimes. If democracy demanded that something should be illegal, then we should respect democracy. Nobody said that democracy was perfect, but if that's what the majority of people want, that's what they'll get. If democracy demands Mitt Romney to be president, then let the people have their backlash from Mitt Romney's insane foreign policy.

For Iran, you still haven't given a reason as to why they're a threat. You haven't stated what negative repercussions there are from leaving them be, and you just proved you haven't been reading my posts at all if you haven't seen the video I linked earlier in the discussion. Israel may be concerned, but they've clearly stated that they don't need the US to be involved. Give me real evidence or logic that states otherwise. Why are you not respecting Israel's wishes? You're pretty much implying they they're not a threat, so why not leave them alone?

Now, what if someone was doing well in polls, do you still think it's silly to vote for them because they're not a Republican or a Democrat? Do you know who everyone is going to vote for? Do you know what everyone's mindset is? Did you know that these polls that organisations run are a bunch of nonsense since they don't provide all options? Did you know that if you replace Mitt Romney with Ron Paul, he actually does better. Polls mean nothing, and we won't know what the real story is until election day. Perhaps Johnson will get a significant portion of the vote, probably 15%, and make a huge dent in how future presidential candidates will behave in the future. Perhaps Obama will get 99% of the vote. We don't know, but if someone was to campaign heavily, and get their name out there and become well known, then there's no reason you shouldn't vote for them.

You're acting as if it's simply impossible for a third party candidate to ever succeed. The Republicans have succeeded before when they were a third party candidate. Everyone decided to not vote for the major parties, and voted for them. That will easily happen again once the right candidate comes along, and once even more people start becoming politically active. You're promoting this mentality: "I want to vote for them, but I know that everyone else will vote for that other guy, so I'll vote for that other guy too". You're bad-mouthing people who are not afraid to fall for that mentality, and you're bad-mouthing those who want to vote their conscience. Votes are always the same value. 1 vote for Person A is the same as 1 vote for Person B, which is the same as 1 vote for Person C. It's a vote, and it always counts. A vote for a fictional character can't count because it's 1 vote for no gain.

You're a disrespectful man who can't take other people's opinions seriously, who can't respect other people's morals, who can't respect other another country's demands, who can't respect democracy and wants to promote a dictatorship and most importantly, who can't respect the value of a vote.

 

[Lacius]

You're still trying to enforce your moral opinions. You're entitled to try prove that your moral point is correct, but like I've already explained, you're not necessarily correct, and other people are entitled to their opinions. There's no set definition of what is moral, that's the whole point of morals. They're personal, and always will be personal.

I've already explained how your relativist point of view on morals doesn't work.

Yet, you want to promote a dictatorship using your moral standards.

I think you need to look up what "dictatorship" means, because I'm in no way advocating a dictatorship.

It doesn't matter what you've said directly, that's what you're implying.

No, it's not. Please pay attention to my words rather than your poorly constructed straw man argument.

Let's take Foxi4's example, we have moral issues with killing humans, yet we have no issues about killing small creatures. Why is that? Don't small little creatures have their rights as well? Obviously a lot of people are going to say yes they do, you might say they don't.

Once again, you're taking the relativist approach and saying one society's laws allowing human murder and one's society's laws allowing the killing of animals are perfectly equal. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? You're still seemingly ignoring all of my points.

As for your animal death example, I never said morality was easy or that humans weren't still talking about specific issues. It wasn't long ago that we were still figuring out as a nation whether or not slavery was moral. However, you seem to be having a difficult time understanding that there's a difference between figuring out if something's moral and deciding if something's moral, and you're apparently saying it's the latter and that whether or not something is moral is arbitrarily chosen; the fact that I can logically quantify morality and that there are biological predispositions to morality (like altruistic behavior, for example) is evidence against your point of view.

You'll notice that a lot of the moral debates we're having (animal death, abortion, etc.) have to deal with definitions (for example, the definition of human life) rather than whether something is arbitrarily moral or not.

By the way, the NDAA violates the person's right to a trial, yet that has been signed into federal law.

A lot of things violate a person's right to trial (for example, someone being shot by police forces so he or she can't shoot someone else), so I don't exactly see your point. Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the controversial part of the NDAA. But you're not even providing a valid argument in this specific instance. If you're arguing that violating someone's right to trial automatically makes something inherently immoral, then I have debunked that.

Also, according to you, morality is relative anyway so you have no case. It sounds to me like you're "imposing your moral views on the rest of us" by saying everyone should have the right to trial even if it means we let murderers kill their last victims, hostages, etc.

So letting the states do what they please is the perfect solution.

Because that worked so well for slavery.

One state lives miles away from another state, and therefore will have grown up differently and therefore will have different morals, just like two different countries in the EU.

No, not just like two different countries in the EU. For example, they're not two different countries.

You're saying, we should hope that the federal government is moral.

I'm saying the federal government, for example, should be able to intervene when a state does or allows for something immoral. Are you saying we should have just let slavery continue to be a thing?

But what if they're not?

I never said the federal government is always going to get it right. I never even said I always get it right. So what?

There's no evidence to suggest that they're moral, and that the states aren't.

I've already listed off plenty of examples in which the federal government or courts had to step in to correct what the states were doing. Am I saying the states are inherently less moral because they're states? No. I'm saying not everyone gets it right all the time. But it's my impression that you're saying we should allow states to legalize murder if they so chose.

As the NDAA proved, the federal government is immoral and not at all trustworthy.

That's another logical fallacy.

Democracy can be a funny thing sometimes. If democracy demanded that something should be illegal, then we should respect democracy. Nobody said that democracy was perfect, but if that's what the majority of people want, that's what they'll get. If democracy demands Mitt Romney to be president, then let the people have their backlash from Mitt Romney's insane foreign policy.

As you already conceded, democracy doesn't always get it right, particularly at the state level where slavery was legal, interracial marriage was illegal, etc. That doesn't mean those things are moral. Just because a majority of people think something is right doesn't mean they're right. That's another logical fallacy. For example, just because most people once said the Earth was flat didn't make the Earth flat. And just because a majority of people in a state say something should be illegal doesn't mean it's logically/morally valid. If you think it does, then you don't understand logical fallacies and I'm wasting my time.

For Iran, you still haven't given a reason as to why they're a threat.

Yes, numerous reasons have been given. Nice try though.

You haven't stated what negative repercussions there are from leaving them be, and you just proved you haven't been reading my posts at all if you haven't seen the video I linked earlier in the discussion. Israel may be concerned, but they've clearly stated that they don't need the US to be involved.

Israel's "wishes," as you call them, in that video are that the United States doesn't invade Israel and nation-build in Israel (because they're already a democracy and don't need it). Benjamin Netanyahu isn't talking about Iran at all, and, respectfully, you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. You're saying X and then pointing to a video where someone says Y. I've avoided responding to your video because it's awkward to respond to something so irrelevant.

Now, what if someone was doing well in polls, do you still think it's silly to vote for them because they're not a Republican or a Democrat?

If someone has a chance at winning the election, it's not at all silly to vote for him or her. That's exactly my point, so what's yours?

Do you know who everyone is going to vote for? Do you know what everyone's mindset is?

Nope, but the polls and the statistics give me a fairly good idea.

Did you know that these polls that organisations run are a bunch of nonsense since they don't provide all options?

Did you know that many of them provide Gary Johnson as an option? Did you know that even more of them provide the option of "Other"? Did you know that it's acceptable in statistics to exclude outliers when it's already known that ~99% of people are going to vote for one of the two major-party candidates?

Did you know that if you replace Mitt Romney with Ron Paul, he actually does better.

I suppose that's possible, but forgive me if I remain skeptical until I'm provided the actual numbers that demonstrate this to be true. Until then, so what?

Polls mean nothing, and we won't know what the real story is until election day.

I find it odd that when someone doesn't like the polls, as with the conservatives lately, that they scoff at the numbers and say they're wrong.

Perhaps Johnson will get a significant portion of the vote, probably 15%, and make a huge dent in how future presidential candidates will behave in the future. Perhaps Obama will get 99% of the vote.

Both of the things you mentioned are statistically impossible. It's like saying it's possible 100% of voters are going to vote for me by writing me in.

We don't know, but if someone was to campaign heavily, and get their name out there and become well known, then there's no reason you shouldn't vote for them.

If someone were to campaign well enough that he or she polled well and could possibly win the election, then yes, it's logical to vote for him or her. Your point?

You're acting as if it's simply impossible for a third party candidate to ever succeed.

Impossible for a third-party candidate to ever succeed? I never said that. Impossible in the 2012 election for a third-party candidate to succeed? That's correct.

The Republicans have succeeded before when they were a third party candidate. Everyone decided to not vote for the major parties, and voted for them. That will easily happen again once the right candidate comes along, and once even more people start becoming politically active.

It was public opinion that allowed for that candidate to have a statistical chance at winning, and that kind of public opinion does not exist during this election.

You're promoting this mentality: "I want to vote for them, but I know that everyone else will vote for that other guy, so I'll vote for that other guy too".

Close, but not quite. I'm promoting the mentality: "I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes."

You're bad-mouthing people who are not afraid to fall for that mentality, and you're bad-mouthing those who want to vote their conscience.

I'm not bad-mouthing anyone. I'm merely pointing out that if your goal is to help decide who wins this presidential election, you should vote for one of the major-party candidates because they are who it's down to. If your goal is anything other than helping decide who wins the election, then it's logical to vote for whomever you want.

Votes are always the same value. 1 vote for Person A is the same as 1 vote for Person B, which is the same as 1 vote for Person C. It's a vote, and it always counts. A vote for a fictional character can't count because it's 1 vote for no gain.

If you think all votes are the same value, you're delusional. The way the presidential election is setup in the United States with the Electoral College, the value of your vote is even determined by which state you live in. A vote in Ohio, for example, is over 100 times the value of a vote in, say, Michigan because of the partisan environments of states.

As for the value of one's vote and whom someone votes for, voting for someone who cannot win is the same thing as throwing your vote away.

If you're talking purely numbers, then you're right that each vote = 1, but that says nothing about the likelihood of a single vote helping to decide an election, which is why this is going over your head.

You're a disrespectful man who can't take other people's opinions seriously, who can't respect other people's morals, who can't respect other another country's demands, who can't respect democracy and wants to promote a dictatorship and most importantly, who can't respect the value of a vote.

Just because I disagree with a lot of what you've said doesn't mean I've been disrespectful or haven't taken peoples' opinions seriously. I'm sorry if I've upset you, but when someone says something I think is false, I am going to call him or her out on it.

 

[Deleted-185407]

I've already explained how your relativist point of view on morals doesn't work.

I think you need to look up what "dictatorship" means, because I'm in no way advocating a dictatorship.

No, it's not. Please pay attention to my words rather than your poorly constructed straw man argument.

Once again, you're taking the relativist approach and saying one society's laws allowing human murder and one's society's laws allowing the killing of animals are perfectly equal. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? You're still seemingly ignoring all of my points.

As for your animal death example, I never said morality was easy or that humans weren't still talking about specific issues. It wasn't long ago that we were still figuring out as a nation whether or not slavery was moral. However, you seem to be having a difficult time understanding that there's a difference between figuring out if something's moral and deciding if something's moral, and you're apparently saying it's the latter and that whether or not something is moral is arbitrarily chosen; the fact that I can logically quantify morality and that there are biological predispositions to morality (like altruistic behavior, for example) is evidence against your point of view.

You'll notice that a lot of the moral debates we're having (animal death, abortion, etc.) have to deal with definitions (for example, the definition of human life) rather than whether something is arbitrarily moral or not.

A lot of things violate a person's right to trial (for example, someone being shot by police forces so he or she can't shoot someone else), so I don't exactly see your point. Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the controversial part of the NDAA. But you're not even providing a valid argument in this specific instance. If you're arguing that violating someone's right to trial automatically makes something inherently immoral, then I have debunked that.

Also, according to you, morality is relative anyway so you have no case. It sounds to me like you're "imposing your moral views on the rest of us" by saying everyone should have the right to trial even if it means we let murderers kill their last victims, hostages, etc.

Because that worked so well for slavery.

No, not just like two different countries in the EU. For example, they're not two different countries.

I'm saying the federal government, for example, should be able to intervene when a state does or allows for something immoral. Are you saying we should have just let slavery continue to be a thing?

I never said the federal government is always going to get it right. I never even said I always get it right. So what?

I've already listed off plenty of examples in which the federal government or courts had to step in to correct what the states were doing. Am I saying the states are inherently less moral because they're states? No. I'm saying not everyone gets it right all the time. But it's my impression that you're saying we should allow states to legalize murder if they so chose.

That's another logical fallacy.

As you already conceded, democracy doesn't always get it right, particularly at the state level where slavery was legal, interracial marriage was illegal, etc. That doesn't mean those things are moral. Just because a majority of people think something is right doesn't mean they're right. That's another logical fallacy. For example, just because most people once said the Earth was flat didn't make the Earth flat. And just because a majority of people in a state say something should be illegal doesn't mean it's logically/morally valid. If you think it does, then you don't understand logical fallacies and I'm wasting my time.

Yes, numerous reasons have been given. Nice try though.

Israel's "wishes," as you call them, in that video are that the United States doesn't invade Israel and nation-build in Israel (because they're already a democracy and don't need it). Benjamin Netanyahu isn't talking about Iran at all, and, respectfully, you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. You're saying X and then pointing to a video where someone says Y. I've avoided responding to your video because it's awkward to respond to something so irrelevant.

If someone has a chance at winning the election, it's not at all silly to vote for him or her. That's exactly my point, so what's yours?

Nope, but the polls and the statistics give me a fairly good idea.

Did you know that many of them provide Gary Johnson as an option? Did you know that even more of them provide the option of "Other"? Did you know that it's acceptable in statistics to exclude outliers when it's already known that ~99% of people are going to vote for one of the two major-party candidates?

I suppose that's possible, but forgive me if I remain skeptical until I'm provided the actual numbers that demonstrate this to be true. Until then, so what?

I find it odd that when someone doesn't like the polls, as with the conservatives lately, that they scoff at the numbers and say they're wrong.
Both of the things you mentioned are statistically impossible. It's like saying it's possible 100% of voters are going to vote for me by writing me in.

If someone were to campaign well enough that he or she polled well and could possibly win the election, then yes, it's logical to vote for him or her. Your point?

Impossible for a third-party candidate to ever succeed? I never said that. Impossible in the 2012 election for a third-party candidate to succeed? That's correct.

It was public opinion that allowed for that candidate to have a statistical chance at winning, and that kind of public opinion does not exist during this election.

Close, but not quite. I'm promoting the mentality: "I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes."

I'm not bad-mouthing anyone. I'm merely pointing out that if your goal is to help decide who wins this presidential election, you should vote for one of the major-party candidates because they are who it's down to. If your goal is anything other than helping decide who wins the election, then it's logical to vote for whomever you want.

If you think all votes are the same value, you're delusional. The way the presidential election is setup in the United States with the Electoral College, the value of your vote is even determined by which state you live in. A vote in Ohio, for example, is over 100 times the value of a vote in, say, Michigan because of the partisan environments of states.

As for the value of one's vote and whom someone votes for, voting for someone who cannot win is the same thing as throwing your vote away.

If you're talking purely numbers, then you're right that each vote = 1, but that says nothing about the likelihood of a single vote helping to decide an election, which is why this is going over your head.

Just because I disagree with a lot of what you've said doesn't mean I've been disrespectful or haven't taken peoples' opinions seriously. I'm sorry if I've upset you, but when someone says something I think is false, I am going to call him or her out on it.

You take figures of speech far too literally.

Again, feel free to try connect morals to logic, it's not fully possible, because it's based on what people are comfortable with and what they feel iffy about. It's trying to tie emotions to logic. I'm paying perfect attention to everything you are saying, but you are being arrogant and stating that your opinion is right because it seems logical to you. That might not necessarily be the case for other people, what's so hard to accept about that? Besides, we're steering away from the original point which is that the states should be allowed to do whatever they want. The federal government can recommend something no problem to a state, but to force that's state into doing something is ridiculous. But like I keep telling you, if you're not satisfied with how the state is dealing with things, vote them out, and get people you trust into office. Pretty simple stuff.

Slavery was an acceptable social norm several years ago, but it's no longer an accepted social norm now. Thousands of years ago, it was perfectly acceptable for a human to kill another human for food and shelter etc. Birth outside of marriage was considered immoral, still is by some, but by the majority people it's perfectly acceptable nowadays. I think the states are perfectly capable of not making stupid decisions like slavery nowadays. I guarantee you, if the federal government hasn't gotten itself involved, the morality of people in that state would have changed naturally to where slavery wasn't moral. Let's take another example, drug usage, still considered immoral by the majority of people, yet the states want to legalise some drugs because the majority of people's morality in that state have changed. People change, you're acting as if they don't, and that the voters are still untrustworthy. Your morality obviously developed over time as well. If the majority of those people are happy with their decisions, what gives you the right to be "heroic" and forcefully change their ways?

You're stating that violating someone's right is logically immoral, and now you're stating that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral. I don't think I need to explain any more than that on that point.

States and countries in Europe are perfectly equal in terms of population and area. That's why they're comparable. You're taking statements far too literally and not looking outside the box at all.

About Iran, feel free to copy/paste points which explain why it's necessary for the US to get involved, and why Iran is a threat. You haven't done so, and I've already debunked the points given earlier. "Oh there's repercussions", what repercussions?

Israel are basically stating they don't want the US to be involved and that they're perfectly capable of defending themselves. I think that's as clear as it gets. It actually doesn't really matter too much if he was referring to Iran directly, they said they can take care of themselves, so let them take care of themselves.

Your mentality of "I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes." is exactly the same as the mentality I have posted. That's the problem with you, and the large majority of voters. A lot of people are thinking the same thing, because they're scared that everyone else is going to vote for the worst of them all. A lot of people don't want Romney to win, so they'll vote for Obama because they think he might prevent Romney from winning, even though they might actually want to vote for a third-party candidate. That's disrespecting the value of a vote. A vote isn't for "cockblocking". A vote is meant to representing what you believe, and that "cockblocking" mentality needs to be eliminated.

As for my last statement, I'm not talking about my opinions, I'm talking about everyone else's opinions. It's nothing to do with this discussion, it's to do with the fact you don't respect people's votes and think they're being illogical, when in fact, they want to vote for someone they can agree with the most. People who vote for third-party candidates aren't making a "statement", they're doing what they're suppose to be doing with a vote, which is voting for someone they trust and believe in. Voting for someone you actually trust, is far more logical than "cockblocking".

(side note: won't be online till Monday probably)

 

[someonewhodied]

"If Romney wins, I'm leaving the US. If Obama wins, I'm still leaving the US. I just want to travel"
Saw that somewhere but don't remember where lol.

 

[leic7]

You take figures of speech far too literally.

Again, feel free to try connect morals to logic, it's not fully possible, because it's based on what people are comfortable with and what they feel iffy about. It's trying to tie emotions to logic. I'm paying perfect attention to everything you are saying, but you are being arrogant and stating that your opinion is right because it seems logical to you. That might not necessarily be the case for other people, what's so hard to accept about that? Besides, we're steering away from the original point which is that the states should be allowed to do whatever they want. The federal government can recommend something no problem to a state, but to force that's state into doing something is ridiculous. But like I keep telling you, if you're not satisfied with how the state is dealing with things, vote them out, and get people you trust into office. Pretty simple stuff.

Slavery was an acceptable social norm several years ago, but it's no longer an accepted social norm now. Thousands of years ago, it was perfectly acceptable for a human to kill another human for food and shelter etc. Birth outside of marriage was considered immoral, still is by some, but by the majority people it's perfectly acceptable nowadays. I think the states are perfectly capable of not making stupid decisions like slavery nowadays. I guarantee you, if the federal government hasn't gotten itself involved, the morality of people in that state would have changed naturally to where slavery wasn't moral. Let's take another example, drug usage, still considered immoral by the majority of people, yet the states want to legalise some drugs because the majority of people's morality in that state have changed. People change, you're acting as if they don't, and that the voters are still untrustworthy. Your morality obviously developed over time as well. If the majority of those people are happy with their decisions, what gives you the right to be "heroic" and forcefully change their ways?

You're stating that violating someone's right is logically immoral, and now you're stating that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral. I don't think I need to explain any more than that on that point.

States and countries in Europe are perfectly equal in terms of population and area. That's why they're comparable. You're taking statements far too literally and not looking outside the box at all.

About Iran, feel free to copy/paste points which explain why it's necessary for the US to get involved, and why Iran is a threat. You haven't done so, and I've already debunked the points given earlier. "Oh there's repercussions", what repercussions?

Israel are basically stating they don't want the US to be involved and that they're perfectly capable of defending themselves. I think that's as clear as it gets. It actually doesn't really matter too much if he was referring to Iran directly, they said they can take care of themselves, so let them take care of themselves.

Your mentality of "I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes." is exactly the same as the mentality I have posted. That's the problem with you, and the large majority of voters. A lot of people are thinking the same thing, because they're scared that everyone else is going to vote for the worst of them all. A lot of people don't want Romney to win, so they'll vote for Obama because they think he might prevent Romney from winning, even though they might actually want to vote for a third-party candidate. That's disrespecting the value of a vote. A vote isn't for "cockblocking". A vote is meant to representing what you believe, and that "cockblocking" mentality needs to be eliminated.

As for my last statement, I'm not talking about my opinions, I'm talking about everyone else's opinions. It's nothing to do with this discussion, it's to do with the fact you don't respect people's votes and think they're being illogical, when in fact, they want to vote for someone they can agree with the most. People who vote for third-party candidates aren't making a "statement", they're doing what they're suppose to be doing with a vote, which is voting for someone they trust and believe in. Voting for someone you actually trust, is far more logical than "cockblocking".

(side note: won't be online till Monday probably)

Almost all of the moral questions can be deduced to the form of "Is ______ good(/evil)?", or "Is _______ better than ______?". In the arena of public policy and legislation, those questions take on a reasonably more specific form:
"Is ______ good(/evil), for the well-being of society?"
or
"Is ______ better than _______, for the well-being of society?"

Now those moral questions start to resemble scientific questions, don't they? The sort of questions whose answers can be derived from facts, experimentation, analyses, and reasoning. The sort of questions to which there can be right answers and wrong answers and anything in between. The sort of questions where not every single proposition and conclusion in existence are valued equally. There can be right and wrong answers to moral questions. Morality can evolve just as science can evolve, as our understanding gets better. It's no more disrespectful to say the belief "slavery is good for society" is wrong, than it is to say the belief "earth is flat" is wrong. If the entire culture believes those things, then the entire culture is wrong.

Let me play devil's advocate. A country has its own culture different from other countries', a state has its own culture apart from the cultures of other states in the same country, sure. But within the same state there can be many distinct subcultures too, urban culture is different from rural culture, Christians have their own culture different from Muslims, high-income families have their own culture different from low-income families, gay couples have their own culture different from heterosexual couples, women have their own culture different from men, etc. etc. each person has their own "culture" that's different from other people's. Would you say, then, that the choice to grant control of "local" social issues to the state/country level is rather arbitrary? If it's not okay for Germany to interfere with Irish matters that don't concern Germany, why would it be okay for Irish individuals who are not pregnant to interfere with pregnancy matters of other Irish individuals? If all the pregnant Irish individuals should simply respect majority-rule democracy on this matter which doesn't legitimately concern the Irish majority, then why can't the other Irish individuals also respect the same democracy in the EU on the same matter? Is majority-rule democracy good for the well-being of the Irish society, on this particular matter? Now that's a moral question that sounds kind of like a scientific question.

Everyone's entitled to hanging on to whatever beliefs they feel comfortable with, but that doesn't mean every single one of those beliefs deserves equal air time in the public sphere.

 

[Lacius]

Again, feel free to try connect morals to logic, it's not fully possible, because it's based on what people are comfortable with and what they feel iffy about.

The fact that I can (and have) logically demonstrated why something is or is not moral demonstrates that morality is dependent on logic. If you can answer the questions "Why is X moral?" or "Why isn't X moral?" then that means you're dealing with logic rather than arbitrary feeling. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

It's trying to tie emotions to logic.

Except that morals aren't emotions.

On an unrelated side note, people sometimes have logical reasons for why they feel particular emotions.

but you are being arrogant and stating that your opinion is right because it seems logical to you.

Isn't that the nature of an argument? Thinking I'm right or you're wrong about a particular subject and showing the logical steps I used to reach that conclusion doesn't make me arrogant. I'm more than willing to admit that I'm wrong about, for example, a moral subject if I'm presented with the evidence.

And consequently, aren't you doing the same thing when you argue that it's immoral for a federal government to dictate social policy to the states?

Besides, we're steering away from the original point which is that the states should be allowed to do whatever they want.

I'm not steering away from that point at all; your entire argument is that there's nothing wrong with letting a state legalize murder or slavery if its wants to. In fact, you're arguing that it's immoral not to let them do so, and that's what I find scary.

But like I keep telling you, if you're not satisfied with how the state is dealing with things, vote them out, and get people you trust into office. Pretty simple stuff.

Majorities have a habit of voting against the interests of minorities, even when it doesn't affect the majorities. Ballot measures banning gay marriage are perfect examples. As you've already conceded, democracy doesn't always work.

Slavery was an acceptable social norm several years ago, but it's no longer an accepted social norm now. Thousands of years ago, it was perfectly acceptable for a human to kill another human for food and shelter etc.

And during the Holocaust, it was a social norm to round up people and commit genocide. So what? The fact that you can demonstrate that people used to do bad things and called them "good" doesn't say anything about morality; if anything, all it shows is that what a society says is okay isn't automatically moral.

I think the states are perfectly capable of not making stupid decisions like slavery nowadays.

First of all, I don't concede that states aren't capable of making stupid decisions. As for the fact that states don't advocate for slavery anymore, that's because they were dragged kicking and screaming into having a more moral position and is irrelevant.

I guarantee you, if the federal government hasn't gotten itself involved, the morality of people in that state would have changed naturally to where slavery wasn't moral.

If you can guarantee this, then you can demonstratively show this. Have at it.

Regardless, that says nothing about states' rights or the inherent immorality of slavery.

Let's take another example, drug usage, still considered immoral by the majority of people, yet the states want to legalise some drugs because the majority of people's morality in that state have changed.

Drug laws in the United States are more complicated than the morality of doing drugs.

People change, you're acting as if they don't, and that the voters are still untrustworthy.

I openly admitted that peoples' and societies' moral views change. That's far from being able to say X was once moral but now X is immoral. Just because we used to think slavery was moral doesn't mean it ever was; it means we were wrong.

If the majority of those people are happy with their decisions, what gives you the right to be "heroic" and forcefully change their ways?

Because these people often times do things that are detrimental to society in the name of morality, and that in itself is immoral. For example, some people want to ban the teaching of evolution in the name of God and morality, and that's detrimental to society. Is it moral to allow some states to be in a scientific dark age? No.

And according to you, if most people in the United States say "Yeah, the federal government should be able to dictate social policy across the country," then that position is automatically moral and you're wrong. You're arguing two mutually exclusive things:

1. Morality is relative and something is only moral if a society says it is; as societies change their minds, what's inherently moral changes.

2. It's inherently immoral to allow the federal government to dictate social policy across the states.

Since this discussion on morality and states' rights has gone on much longer than it needed to (mostly because you aren't responding to my individual points or defending the logical fallacies I point out in your arguments), I have two questions I'd like you to answer before we move on, and I refuse to move on until you either respond to or concede these two points:

1. How do you reconcile the above contradiction between moral relativism and the question of the morality/immorality of states' rights? Isn't your position that it's immoral for the federal government to dictate social policy across the country in itself an example of you using your morality to dictate policy others might not agree with?

2. Do you think we should allow states to be able to legalize slavery if the majority in a state were to choose to do so? If the answer is no, then you don't believe in states' rights in the form you've been arguing for. If the answer is yes, then you're saying the rights of states to make whatever silly laws they want outweighs the rights of people not to be enslaved, and I don't know how to nicely say what that says about you.

You're stating that violating someone's right is logically immoral, and now you're stating that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral.

I never said either of those things. Violating someone's right to do X isn't inherently immoral. For example, in the case of laws against murder, Person A's right not to be murdered outweighs Person B's right to murder. Person B's rights are being violated with anti-murdering laws. So what?

I also never said that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral (in fact, I said that I was against the NDAA); all I said was that there is precedent for violating someone's right to trial in specific circumstances such as the need for the use of deadly force. I'm starting to think you're not taking this discussion seriously, because, respectfully, that entire statement was a joke.

States and countries in Europe are perfectly equal in terms of population and area. That's why they're comparable.

Even if I were to concede your points about population and area, that says nothing about intricate differences between separate countries and separate states as far as government is concerned. The fact that the United States has things like the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution shows why they're incomparable in the way you're trying to compare them.

About Iran, feel free to copy/paste points which explain why it's necessary for the US to get involved, and why Iran is a threat. You haven't done so, and I've already debunked the points given earlier. "Oh there's repercussions", what repercussions?

I already talked about Iran's ties with terrorists, for starters. Are you saying these potential ties don't exist? If you aren't saying that, then you concede there's reason for concern. If you are saying that, then please show me evidence.

It's also not my job to copy/paste points you've ignored or failed to understand.

Israel are basically stating they don't want the US to be involved and that they're perfectly capable of defending themselves.

Saying they don't want the United States to send troops to occupy Israel is different from saying they don't want the United States to be involved when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.

It actually doesn't really matter too much if he was referring to Iran directly

Actually, it does, especially when you're claiming someone said something that he didn't actually say, and the thing you're claiming isn't true. Israel wants the United States to be involved in preventing a nuclear Iran, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your mentality of "I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes." is exactly the same as the mentality I have posted. That's the problem with you, and the large majority of voters. A lot of people are thinking the same thing, because they're scared that everyone else is going to vote for the worst of them all. A lot of people don't want Romney to win, so they'll vote for Obama because they think he might prevent Romney from winning, even though they might actually want to vote for a third-party candidate. That's disrespecting the value of a vote. A vote isn't for "cockblocking". A vote is meant to representing what you believe, and that "cockblocking" mentality needs to be eliminated.

As for my last statement, I'm not talking about my opinions, I'm talking about everyone else's opinions. It's nothing to do with this discussion, it's to do with the fact you don't respect people's votes and think they're being illogical, when in fact, they want to vote for someone they can agree with the most. People who vote for third-party candidates aren't making a "statement", they're doing what they'resuppose to be doing with a vote, which is voting for someone they trust and believe in. Voting for someone you actually trust, is far more logical than "cockblocking".

When one's preferred candidate cannot win, "cockblocking" the candidate one strongly disagrees with is perfectly logical.

 

[KingVamp]

Peps is going to have USA going back years of progress under his scary ideals. Throwing equal rights out of the window for the favor of moral relativism.

 

[LightyKD]

The Bidens (Vice President, Joe and his Wife, Jill) are coming to my town with a special guest ( John Mellencamp). Got off work yesterday, drove up seven streets to park and ran back five of those and scored tickets for my Wife and me! Let's go over my political check list...

[X] = Have had a chance to see person (in person obviously) at some event


Barack Obama [X]
Michelle Obama [X]
Tim Kaine [X]
Mark Warner [X]
Joe Biden [Monday]
Jill Biden [Monday]
Bill Clinton [ ]
Hillary Clinton [ ]
Jill Stein [ ]
Al Sharpton [ ] (Apparently I missed out on this opportunity a few weeks ago)


I would REALLY love to see the Clintons one day. This year has been a lovely ride of meeting famous people! Between all the political rallies and the visit this past summer from Impact Wrestling (those guys really know about fan service!) I have had so many awesome pictures and videos to post to Facebook.

 

[Gahars]

So, folks, we're in the home stretch for this election. According to the most recent update to Nate Silver's 538 prediction model, Obama is currently looking at an 85% chance of victory on Tuesday.

Here's what the map looks like so far.

You might have heard on the news that this election is a "toss up", but that doesn't seem to be the case. No matter what the polls say, however, just make sure to go out vote for the candidate of your choice.

 

[KingVamp]

No matter what the polls say, however, just make sure to go out vote for the candidate of your choice.

Which is to say, vote for Obama.

 

[DiscostewSM]

So, folks, we're in the home stretch for this election. According to the most recent update to Nate Silver's 538 prediction model, Obama is currently looking at an 85% chance of victory on Tuesday.

Here's what the map looks like so far.

You might have heard on the news that this election is a "toss up", but that doesn't seem to be the case. No matter what the polls say, however, just make sure to go out vote for the candidate of your choice.

Wasn't his prediction model in 2008 based on the disappointment of Americans towards the Republican Party? It was during Bush's lowest popularity margin at the time. People wanted change, so they voted in a man who would do that. Now it is 2012, and are those same people satisfied with what Obama has done? Unless he's made a new one, Silver's prediction model wouldn't exactly work for this election year because the situation is different from the last one.

 

[Gahars]

Wasn't his prediction model in 2008 based on the disappointment of Americans towards the Republican Party? It was during Bush's lowest popularity margin at the time. People wanted change, so they voted in a man who would do that. Now it is 2012, and are those same people satisfied with what Obama has done? Unless he's made a new one, Silver's prediction model wouldn't exactly work for this election year because the situation is different from the last one.

That might have fueled people to vote for Obama in the election, but that wasn't the basis for his prediction model... at all. He draws his conclusions from statistical analysis and number crunching, not guesswork.

 

[DiscostewSM]

**turns away from his game**

I'll just be glad once this election is over. Maybe then we can get back to the important stuff.

**turns back to his game**

 

[Gahars]

And for those who are unsure...

Find Your Fucking Polling Place.