What a bunch of double-talking nonsense. You don't need religion to know that bullying someone just because you can is wrong, just as I don't need religion to tell me that killing and stealing is wrong. It's just wrong. Both conservatives and liberals should agree on that.
I can see you've never taken any philosophy courses and you seem to neither know much about history or anything sociologically actually.
Plenty of people believe bullying is the right thing to do and they do it. Plenty of people believe stealing is the right thing to do and do it. And back when the Aztecs believed sacrificing humans and eating their flesh was the right thing to to, guess what, they did it.
But my point original point was that
everything in observational science, in the science of biology is perceived as
amoral. When I took a philosophy of biology course in university we discussed the forcible rape of women from a completely amoral position, as the discussion was an inquiry into the evolutionary advantages of it (particularly of men raping lesbians--if "lesbian genes" were to be passed on into the genetic pool of a population). And I was saying that a construct of "good guys" vs "bad guys" in a construct of "morality" is inherently religious.
I had an atheist philosophy professor for a course on political freedom/liberty making a condescending statement about religious people believing in a objective "morality" that is "just out there somewhere." The exact same kind of morality you just tried to argue: that bullying and stealing are wrong because some "morality just out there in the universe makes it so." So, I'm saying you would be an example of that atheist philosophy professors view of how a religious person
thinks.
Whereas, if we distinguish between "ethics" and "morality," as some people do, an atheist philosopher might argue "ethics" (agreed upon norms, or something elites impose unto the masses) are subjective and just something people make and agree upon in the belief doing so will bring about some preferred outcome they desire. So, a medical doctor fondling his female patients breasts might not objectively be immoral, may not make him a "bad guy," but it my make him unethical and unfit to practice medicine based upon the agreed ethical norms some professional medical board (with the power to license or strip of licensing) created.
Where conservatives and liberals don't agree is on issues such as cutting taxes for the wealthy. Conservatives will argue that the wealthy will then use their windfall to create jobs for the less wealthy (which is nonsense). Liberals will point out that the wealthy will instead bank the savings and keep it for themselves - the obvious truth.
I'm fiscally liberal. More so than most Democrats.
But I don't really subscribe to a one size fits all economic model--for all eras and for all countries--kind of economics belief. Particularly when financial innovations occur.
But anyways... in my view (because not all rich are equal just like not all the poor in the USA are equal, some poor are homeless on the streets, some are poor in nice apartments, some are poor in dilapidated 4 bedroom homes with rats in them) the lower rich are taxed way too heavy in the USA. I'm talking about surgeons and so forth. Individuals earning $200,000 and $500,000 a year, even maybe $1,000,000 a year. Nearly, in some states in particularly, 50% of their income is taxed. Some of these people have a quarter million in student loans to pay back too. And some of them provide immense benefits to society. Like a surgeon. People should not be made discouraged to pursue this because the taxes, and insurance they will need to buy, punishes them along with the grueling hours of study, service, and intellectual work on the whole.
The very rich--who ironically have loopholes to escape paying taxes on their income--need to be forced to pay up to 50% taxes on their income. If you are earning $10 million or $20 million a year (first off you're not worth all that no matter how brilliant or capable you are and how much you delude yourself in some inherent worth you think you are) let alone worth $1 billion or $20 billion already, we don't need your charity work as much as substantial tax dollars from you.
The super-rich, those familiies worth
trillions is another issue. But Democrats focus too much on sticking it to the surgeons (who benefit society more than Facebook and their related tech geeks). Didn't Mark Zuckerberg declare his annual income in at $1.00 so that he could evade paying income tax? I think so. Many uper-rich do that. And I think Z Dawg is a Democrat opposed to men groping a sexy woman's plump behind.
