• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you have a personal concept of right and wrong?

Do you believe in morality?


  • Total voters
    59
I have no intent of defending the Republicans.

Still, the incorporation of outright lying as the foundation of the party is the act of the democrats.

View attachment 67178875

They both do it as much as possible, R or D, there's no difference. Republocrats all act similarly.
 
How is it your business?

How was Slavery the North's business?

And when it doubt, ad hom it out, right? :lol:

No Ad Hominem present. I accurately described elective abortion as what it actually is.

It is the legal ability for one human being to dehumanize, and even grievously harm, another without consequence, simply because that first person is considered to be more "socially relevant" than the second. You could describe historical attitudes towards child and domestic abuse, as well slavery, in exactly the same way.

I'm sorry if the comparison makes you uncomfortable. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
They both do it as much as possible, R or D, there's no difference. Republocrats all act similarly.

Reality belies your position.

The Republicans are nothing pleasant. Republicans are about as beneficial as a bad case of genital herpes. democrats are full blown AIDS.
 
Reality belies your position.

The Republicans are nothing pleasant. Republicans are about as beneficial as a bad case of genital herpes. democrats are full blown AIDS.

They are both cancer.
 
Under Republicans, I get to keep civil rights.

Under democrats, I do not.

No you don't. Repubs have no concept of privacy nor restriction on search and seizure. No respect for free speech, they support increasingly militarized policing of the population, contributed to the volume of laws that makes America the #1 jailer of its own peoe world wide. They expand bureaucracy and government power and have no respect for the rights and liberties of the individual. You don't keep your rights with any of the Republocrats.
 
No you don't. Repubs have no concept of privacy nor restriction on search and seizure. No respect for free speech, they support increasingly militarized policing of the population, contributed to the volume of laws that makes America the #1 jailer of its own peoe world wide. They expand bureaucracy and government power and have no respect for the rights and liberties of the individual. You don't keep your rights with any of the Republocrats.

I have seen freedom of expression crushed in this nation - but not by Republicans. I look and those who attacked Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, and I don't see Republicans - I see the party. I have seen people branded with a scarlet letter for holding views that our rulers opposed, speak against homosexuality and lose your job at the very least. I see the party accrue privilege to groups, while denying rights to individuals.

The Republicans are weak in defending civil rights.

The democrats are strong is attacking civil rights.

The Republicans (and democrats) agreed to monitor cell phone traffic to foreign nationals in Muslim countries suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.

The democrats spied on enemies of the party and set the IRS on them.

There is no legitimate comparison.

I wish the Republicans were dedicated to defending civil rights - but I know that the democrats are fully committed to ending civil rights.
 
How was Slavery the North's business?

No Ad Hominem present. I accurately described elective abortion as what it actually is.

It is the legal ability for one human being to dehumanize, and even grievously harm, another without consequence, simply because that first person is considered to be more "socially relevant" than the second. You could describe historical attitudes towards child and domestic abuse, as well slavery, in exactly the same way.

I'm sorry if the comparison makes you uncomfortable. :shrug:

Because the North and the South were a country? Last I checked it was the United States of America, no?

And no you didn't. You're fallaciously assuming that a fetus is, in fact, a human being -- which, so far, isn't the case. You may think the fetus is a human being, and I may think the fetus is not, but that doesn't make your opinion superior to mine. So it is a stretch to extend treating a human being poorly in the same way as treating a non-human being in the same way.

Doesn't make me feel uncomfortable but your meager attempts are slander won't go unnoticed.

No you don't. Repubs have no concept of privacy nor restriction on search and seizure. No respect for free speech, they support increasingly militarized policing of the population, contributed to the volume of laws that makes America the #1 jailer of its own peoe world wide. They expand bureaucracy and government power and have no respect for the rights and liberties of the individual. You don't keep your rights with any of the Republocrats.

Let's not forget how Republicans think criticizing their religion violates the First Amendment.
 
Last edited:
Because the North and the South were a country? Last I checked it was the United States of America, no?

The wanton slaughter of unborn children presently takes place in my own country as well. Does it not?

And no you didn't. You're fallaciously assuming that a fetus is, in fact, a human being -- which, so far, isn't the case.

The term you are looking for here is "person," not "human being," which is a legal construct anyway. The fact that a fetus is a "human being" on a biological or genetic basis is undeniable.

Though... I guess it is worth noting that Southern slave owners tried to justify their actions by claiming that African Americans were neither legal "persons," nor even, in some cases, the same species as their Causasian owners as well. :lol:

Dehumanizing their victims makes the dishing out of flagrant abuse easier to stomach for a lot of people, it seems.
 
Last edited:
The wanton slaughter of unborn children presently takes place in my own country as well. Does it not?

The term you are looking for here is "person," not "human being," which is a legal construct anyway. The fact that a fetus is a "human being" on a biological or genetic basis is undeniable.

Though... I guess it is worth noting that Southern slave owners tried to justify their actions by claiming that African Americans were neither legal "persons," or even, in some cases, the same species as their Causasian owners as well. :lol:

Nope. Abortions take place.

I know what I said, no reason to clarify, thanks. And that is deniable. What does it mean to be a human being? Simply having human DNA?
 
They both do it as much as possible, R or D, there's no difference. Republocrats all act similarly.

Can you give us an example of a lie, deliberately pedaled to the American people (who were called stupid by its authors), and passed unilaterally on all Americans that forced them to comply or face a heavy fine? :2wave:

This will be good.
 
No you don't. Repubs have no concept of privacy nor restriction on search and seizure. No respect for free speech, they support increasingly militarized policing of the population, contributed to the volume of laws that makes America the #1 jailer of its own peoe world wide. They expand bureaucracy and government power and have no respect for the rights and liberties of the individual. You don't keep your rights with any of the Republocrats.

:lamo:2wave:
 
Using your parameters for morality in your case, it is immoral, under any circumstance to harm anybody. What if someone can be helped if you harm another person?

As I said it is a basis, there can always be moral delimas. In your case, it is moral to help person A but immoral to hurt person B. Not helping person A is not hurting them so not helping them is morally neutral. Therefore, in your scenario, I would not help person A if it hurts person B.
 
Under Republicans, I get to keep civil rights.

Under democrats, I do not.

That's funny. Under Republicans, I have less civil rights and under Democrats I have the same as everybody else.
 
I have seen freedom of expression crushed in this nation - but not by Republicans. I look and those who attacked Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor, and I don't see Republicans - I see the party. I have seen people branded with a scarlet letter for holding views that our rulers opposed, speak against homosexuality and lose your job at the very least. I see the party accrue privilege to groups, while denying rights to individuals.

The Republicans are weak in defending civil rights.

The democrats are strong is attacking civil rights.

The Republicans (and democrats) agreed to monitor cell phone traffic to foreign nationals in Muslim countries suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.

The democrats spied on enemies of the party and set the IRS on them.

There is no legitimate comparison.

I wish the Republicans were dedicated to defending civil rights - but I know that the democrats are fully committed to ending civil rights.

The Republicans are strong at denying equal rights.
The Democrats are good at attacking the civil rights they dont agree with, this I admit.
I will support the people that come closest to giving me equal rights.
 
Since the thread is about morals, I think its immoral to bring up the abortion issue in every flipping debate. :)
 
Those are a matter of instinct, more than anything else.

However, "right and wrong" goes beyond that.

Is a person willing to do the "right thing" even when it is the difficult thing to do? Are they willing to do so when no one is watching?

That would get more to the heart of "goodness" and "badness," imo.

That is an issue of conscience though. Most people do the right thing because of their conscience, that is unless they can rationalize it somehow and humans are great at rationalization.
 
That is an issue of conscience though. Most people do the right thing because of their conscience, that is unless they can rationalize it somehow and humans are great at rationalization.

True. However, that kind of goes back to the root of the question I was asking before.

Is the OP's question really the right one to ask?

I'm pretty sure that even Hitler and Joseph Stalin had at least some sense of "right and wrong." That doesn't mean it was necessarily correct. :lol:
 
No, fact is fact. You've not challenged me on fact, you only move to defend your party.

I doubt you have any care at all that your party systematically embraces deception and dishonesty as policy, provided that those who would expose this fact are silenced.

We can average the net worth of members of both houses to test whether the "party of the rich" claim is factual. (democrats have about 30% greater wealth.)

Our Oligarchical Congresscritters Are WAY Richer Than You | PJ Tatler

How a link to a web page showing that “The median net worth of a member of Congress was $1,029,505 in 2013 “WHICH INCLUDES DEMS AS WELL A REPS is hardly proof of anything but they didn’t take a vow of poverty.:lol:
 
True. However, that kind of goes back to the root of the question I was asking before.

Is the OP's question really the right one to ask?

I'm pretty sure that even Hitler and Joseph Stalin had at least some sense of "right and wrong." That doesn't mean it was necessarily correct. :lol:

In the case of Hitler and Stalin they were obviously textbook sociopaths. Granted most sociopaths do not kill people. In fact, the vast majority are not even needlessly cruel to people or animals. However, all sociopaths lack what we think of as a conscience. They act purely on what they perceive as being rational. In the case of Stalin, he had what he saw was a rational goal (modernizing Russia and suppressing dissent). The rational way of him doing that (as he saw it) was through complete control of the masses, brutally suppressing any dissent, and maintaing a forced labor force in the gulags. He was able to do this because he was completely unencumbered by conscience or empathy.

Dehumanization has came up in this thread. That was kind of the point of my poll. As I pointed out earlier, a few on here have argued that liberals are "moral nihilists" or people that in general are not bound by morality. That type of thinking is a perfect example of dehumanizing those you disagree with as having a sense of right and wrong and a conscience are what define us as human. Those that are not constrained by a sense of morality and conscience we refer to as "inhuman".
 
In the case of Hitler and Stalin they were obviously textbook sociopaths. Granted most sociopaths do not kill people. In fact, the vast majority are not even needlessly cruel to people or animals. However, all sociopaths lack what we think of as a conscience. They act purely on what they perceive as being rational. In the case of Stalin, he had what he saw was a rational goal (modernizing Russia and suppressing dissent). The rational way of him doing that (as he saw it) was through complete control of the masses, brutally suppressing any dissent, and maintaing a forced labor force in the gulags. He was able to do this because he was completely unencumbered by conscience or empathy.

Dehumanization has came up in this thread. That was kind of the point of my poll. As I pointed out earlier, a few on here have argued that liberals are "moral nihilists" or people that in general are not bound by morality. That type of thinking is a perfect example of dehumanizing those you disagree with as having a sense of right and wrong and a conscience are what define us as human. Those that are not constrained by a sense of morality and conscience we refer to as "inhuman".

Personally, I'm not sure if I'd classify Hitler as necessarily being "rational."

I think he was actually rather more "emotion" driven, idealistic, and even romantic. It just happened to be in an incredibly twisted and perverse way, to match his incredibly twisted and perverse personality. Frankly, you could kind of say the same thing about Nazism in general.

I would agree with you regarding to Stalin, though I think his goals were ultimately just as self-serving and self-aggrandizing as they ever were for the "greater good."

In any case, however, I'm not really sure if I understand your point in starting this thread to begin with. You're trying to prove that Liberals have morals?

By and large, I'd agree. I'd also agree that dehumanization is a problem (for both sides of the spectrum).

Whether Liberal morals are "correct," or not, is obviously open for interpretation, however. ;)
 
Last edited:
W
Lol @ people on the internet tying the vagaries of morality to a political spectrum.. That's like saying my brand of microwave is better than your brand of microwave. It's silly and childish.

Mark Sanford reveals he's called off engagement to Argentinian 'soulmate' mistress for whom he divorced wife in scandal that ruined his White House dreams | Daily Mail Online

Mark Sanford reveals he’s called off engagement to Argentinian ‘soulmate’ mistress for whom he divorced wife in scandal that ruined his White House dreams
Sanford said in a Facebook post on Friday that he and mistress turned fiancee Maria Belen Chapur had ended their relationship
The announcement came a week and a half after Sanford's ex-wife suggested her former husband does illegal and prescription drugs
In the 2,346 Facebook post Sanford claims he has never done drugs and says the accusations made by former spouse are 'crazy'



You can always tell the idiots in a room by who labels peoples morality by their political affiliations. It's idiocy defined. Can you imagine if you were able to pull up all the sexual doings of the average "Conservative Grand Puba" on this board who tie morality to political conservatism? My god.. You can begin to imagine what I mean. People are hypocrites and delusional when it comes to notions of morality.

FtjvGEG.gif

And now the moralist and former Govenor "Windswept Somewhere" Sanford is married to his Argentine lover.
 
In any case, however, I'm not really sure if I understand your point in starting this thread to begin with. You're trying to prove that Liberals have morals?

By and large, I'd agree. I'd also agree that dehumanization is a problem (for both sides of the spectrum).

Whether Liberal morals are "correct," or not, is obviously open for interpretation, however. ;)

I am just demonstrating that most people have morals and a conscience. I don't think there is any correlation at all between political ideology (excluding extremists) and personal sense of morality and conscience. By and large, most people are good and decent people regardless of their politics.
 
Back
Top Bottom