Morals and ethics are still not going to change in definition just because you disagree with those definitions. Morals are personal, ethics involve a society. A company society is just one example of where ethics apply, but it's not the only example. Ethics apply to any form of community. The fact you don't know such basic definitions show that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to morals or ethics. That is what they always mean, research into them further if you must. Most of the time, yes, they are very similar, but that's because people's morals just happen to match the society's ethics, but it's not necessarily always the case. That's pretty much summarising what I've been taught in college during my Law and Ethics module in college.
Moral and
ethical. You're free to talk about morals and ethics they way you're doing, but those definitions aren't necessarily the case, and in no way am I confusing the two; I've been talking about your definition of "moral" this whole time, so I don't see how any of this is relevant to the conversation.
Besides, getting back to the main point on morals, let's take more examples. Loli manga as I mentioned earlier, is logically fine, but yet is deemed immoral, while other societies deem it as morally acceptable.
You're arguing that someone who thinks "loli manga" is immoral cannot logically explain his or her position?
Why do people logically care about others, when it's sometimes far more logically not to?
Are you arguing it's illogical to take care of one another?
If someone breaks your heart, why is it logical to feel heartbroken, when it's more logically to feel happier?
Are you arguing it's illogical to be heartbroken?
Nobody is arguing that some morals can't be derived logically, but not all of them can be.
If someone claims that X is moral or immoral but cannot logically explain why X should be considered moral or immoral, then that person should not be taken seriously in considering whether or not X is moral.
This is all quite beside the point, by the way.
Feel free to answer your own questions that prove that the federal government is allowed to have full control over the country. However, when answering that question, prove that the European Union should also not be allowed to take control over all of the countries in Europe, because you're implying that the situations are different. Though I still have no idea why you keep referencing to slavery, because it makes perfect sense for a state to re-introduce dark age concepts? Why would slavery be legal again if states were allowed to make their own decisions? You haven't answered that question at all, and you can use the slavery argument as a reason to not have a federal government. You say you're not arguing that the states are going to re-introduce slavery should they get their way, yet that's your argument for not allowing states to have control over their own land.
You're arguing that the federal government and courts do not have the right to intervene when the states get it wrong, which means you're arguing that the federal government should not have intervened in the case of abolishing slavery. It does not matter that the states would not re-legalize slavery today if they had the chance; the above is still what you're arguing, and I cannot make it simpler than that.
Besides, just because one state might do something that you deem wrong, why should all of the other states be guilty? America seems to like using the concept of "guilty before proven innocent". If one state does something stupid, every state should pay the price. If a few citizens of a random country decide to rebel against the invaders, then every citizen should pay the price. If a few citizens are pirating, then every citizen should pay the price and be spied on. It's a sickening concept, and in my views, very immoral.
It doesn't look like you even understand what I'm arguing, and it doesn't look like you understand what "guilty before proven innocent" means or how the question of who has the burden of proof in a situation has nothing to do with this discussion. Wow. Just wow.
You're being absolutely ignorant about Iran, and you're refusing to understand that if you leave them alone, they'll have no reason to use these imaginative nuclear weapons against you. None at all. Why would they bomb you for no reason whatsoever? Feel free to try answer that one. By claiming that they'll bomb you if you leave them alone, clearly shows that you have no clue why terrorism occurs, and shows that you refuse to try understand other people. The majority of other countries don't invade other countries, and don't get attacked. Besides, you're talking about war here, where innocent people are going to die on both sides. I don't think either side wants that, but if you continue to push, and claim that other countries are going to attack you for no reason, well that's exactly what's going to happen.
All I've argued is that there's cause for concern over a nuclear Iran, and it has nothing to do with not "leaving them alone." I've done my part in showing you evidence for why there's cause for concern over a nuclear Iran; it's your turn.
Time and time again, you always hear people how they want to vote for third-party candidates, yet won't because they don't think other people will. Yet, what happens if those people didn't think that, and voted for the third-party candidate anyways? People sometimes don't vote, because they're not happy with either the Republicans or Democrats, so what happens if they become aware that there's more than two choices, and use their vote on a third-party candidate? Did you know people are often completely unaware of the third choice?
You have yet to provide me with any evidence that any third-party candidate has any significant support, and all of the data says that no third-party candidate does. You're just giving me a bunch of baseless hypothetical situations.
Your vote for you strongly influences the results of the election.
No, it doesn't.
A vote for you isn't a vote for Romney or Obama. They've both lost one vote. It annoys me when people say a vote for a third-party is a vote for Romney, when it's not, it's a vote that a third-party gains, and it's a vote that Romney and Obama both don't gain.
I agree, which is exactly why a vote for a third-party candidate doesn't affect the outcome of who wins the election when the third-party candidate cannot win. A vote for a third-party candidate is like a vote for Mickey Mouse, not a vote for Romney.
I'm just going to bring in some food for thought here. Fianna Fáil, for a long time, they've been the biggest party in Ireland, often winning the general election. People always thought that everyone else was going to vote Fianna Fáil. However, when Fianna Fáil betrayed the country and brought the country into debt, everyone felt the same way about them, and then started voting other parties. Fianna Fáil did absolutely terrible in the previous general election as a result, and Fine Gael won instead by a huge portion of the vote. Bare in mind, support for more left-wing parties like Sinn Féin has also been drastically increasing. Unfortunately, come budget in December last year, Fine Gael betrayed everyone, especially the students who they largely depended on to get them into office. What do you think is going to happen next general election?
If there's significant support for a candidate, then he or she has a chance at winning the election; if a candidate isn't going to get more than ~1% of the votes, then that candidate cannot win the election and there's no reason to vote for him or her. Get back to me with your example when you have some numbers.
You think that states and citizens are guilty before proven innocent
Our judicial system is setup so the burden of proof is on those claiming someone is guilty of a crime, AKA "not guilty before proven guilty." As for states' rights, no one is advocating a shift in the burden of proof, and you apparently have no idea what you're talking about.
You think that the citizens of states want to remove their human rights
Some states want to take away the rights of certain groups of people, and there is historical precedent for this. Slavery, civil rights, gay rights, reproductive rights, etc.
You think that restricting your rights and options is far superior to having more options and more rights
I'm advocating more rights, not fewer rights. As for options, you're right that I'm against letting states have specific options (like legalizing slavery, for example). So what?
You think that people will bomb you for no good reason whatsoever
Well, it has
happened before, and we have at least cause for concern that it could potentially happen again.
You think that a vote for a third-party, regardless of their popularity, is a vote for Romney
I never argued this. In fact, I said a vote for a third-party candidate, as far as choosing the winner of the election, is as inconsequential as throwing one's vote away.
I've had this lingering suspicion that you're not actually serious about what you say you believe.
On an unrelated note, I voted.
