Why our children don't think there are moral facts

[DocNugent]

Ummmm... exactly what puts Democrats more to the left? I think we've been through the whole "Obama is a Marxist" thing - the GINI coefficient under Obama grew as much as it did under Bush. top 1% is as healthy as ever - hardly an indication of left-wing politics.

I think you are blinded by personalities. Compare the DNC and GOP platforms to take individuals out of the discussion. Those differences should be quite evident.

I am not asking what puts democrats to the left of republicans. Republicans are now to the right of fucking Mussolini in this country. EVERYONE is to the left of them. I am asking what puts them on the left. Democrats in US are to the right of pretty much every major political party in Europe. They are anything BUT a left-wing party.

Could you not see the Overton Window? I define 'left' as Statist (big centralized government) and 'right' as Libertarian (maximum individual freedom). I think you're using the old European understanding of left and right.

As my Nolan Chart (below, the star is where I scored) indicates, I'm not that interested in 'liberal-conservative' differences. The greater impact on our lives is the vertical axis, and both parties are headed 'downward' . . . .

You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Last edited by DocNugent on Tue Mar 17, 2015 11:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

[DSynger]

I'd say anyone who openly belongs to the Communist or Socialist parties in the U.S. People who support abortions, but want firearms completely banned. PETA. The people that come out to riot in Seattle on May 1st. I would agree there are more extreme conservatives in Congress that progressives, but that's not the limit of nutters in this country.

According to your definition (excluding abortion - which is the fucking law of the land; supporting it does not make someone extreme) - there is NO ONE in Congress who is extreme progressive.

Lol

I'll just repeat this sentence, it could be the statement is going against your beliefs so your brain is having troubles with it or not being a native American speaker...

"People who support abortions, but want firearms completely banned."

I support abortions, and I don't believe I'm extreme.

Sorry - I did not realize you tied them together, as these two have nothing in common. Ok.

What percentage of people in Congress want firearms completely banned?

I think they are very much tied together. They're both a right of an individual to take another life.

As for percentage, I don't know. I know Feinstein is for banning all guns and supports abortion. I'll just generalize everyone representing New York, it's probably a safe bet. I don't know of any others that openly support banning all guns in Congress. Kind of a dangerous thing to say.

I'd also consider Biden pretty extreme as well. He's concerned with gun violence, but openly advocates shooting through doors and into the air...

[solyanik]

Abortion is the right to take someone's life IFF you subscribe to the (very religious) notion that life begins at birth. Otherwise claiming that 200 cells is a "someone" is pretty... extreme :-).

And you know, Feinstein is not trying to ban all guns. Only restrict the ownership. I am not trying to defend the moron that she is, only to point out how much less extreme the "leftwing" Congressional positions are, compared to right wing (where you will find no dearth of people who want to restrict all abortions, or declare science a hoax, or claim that Bible is the literal truth).

[Guns4Liberty]

Are you really this dense?

Are you familiar with the ad hominem logical fallacy?

I was challenging your logic, not taking a position. I'm sorry that was lost upon you.

Abortion is supported by vast majority of the people in this country.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Looks to me like over 70% support placing limits on abortion, and nearly half identify themselves as Pro-Life. I'd hardly call that a "vast majority" in support of abortion.

And since this thread is about morality, I'll bring it back to that. Opposition to abortion is increasing and support for it is decreasing, as evidenced by the second graph (linear regression trend lines would aid in highlighting this). I suspect the reason for this is partly to do with a better understanding of the biology (science!) of conception, as well as a growing realization that there is moral ambiguity surrounding the taking of a child's life (or what would eventually become a child, if allowed to remain alive). The fact that you would suggest this opposing view to be extreme despite the clear poll results, the scientific evidence, and the moral implications of abortion is rather troubling coming from a man of your apparent intellect.

[DocNugent]

Abortion is supported by vast majority of the people in this country.

Are you sure about that?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

Looks to me like over 70% support placing limits on abortion, and nearly half identify themselves as Pro-Life. I'd hardly call that a "vast majority" in support of abortion.

And since this thread is about morality, I'll bring it back to that. Opposition to abortion is increasing and support for it is decreasing, as evidenced by the second graph (linear regression trend lines would aid in highlighting this). I suspect the reason for this is partly to do with a better understanding of the biology (science!) of conception, as well as a growing realization that there is moral ambiguity surrounding the taking of a child's life (or what would eventually become a child, if allowed to remain alive). The fact that you would suggest this opposing view to be extreme despite the clear poll results, the scientific evidence, and the moral implications of abortion is rather troubling coming from a man of your apparent intellect.

[kf7mjf]

Placing limits is not the same as opposing abortion.

[DocNugent]

Comparing you today with you the day you were born . . . same person?

And comparing you the day you were born with you the day before that . . . same person?

I'd suggest there is more difference within the former comparison than the latter.

[joao01]

[RENCORP]

Soly - your posts today are looking like you put a fork in the toaster this morning, and didn't let go - for a veeeerrrrryyyyy looooooong time.

[Guns4Liberty]

Back to the original topic of this thread...

In the article (link can be found in the OP), the author makes a pretty interesting observation about the apparent inconsistency of school administrators establishing non-negotiable codes of conduct for students, then teaching those same students that all value judgments are purely subjective (opinion). Of course, we have to take him on his word, and he does draw a fairly broad conclusion about all public schools based upon his limited observations at his son's school, but I think he is still right to challenge the curriculum teaching that claims are either fact or opinion, without leaving open the possibility that they could be both.

Also, I agree with the author that declaring all value judgments to be subjective effectively eliminates the possibility of the existence of moral facts/truths. This is a problem in that it renders all value judgments meaningless; no behavior can then be said to be objectively immoral, because the validity of the judgment becomes entirely dependent upon who makes it, not the intrinsic nature of the action or behavior in question. Perhaps there are no moral facts/truths, but I reject that notion. In my opinion, some things are just absolutely wrong, no matter what.

[Duke EB]

I think that there are no moral facts. Morals are both a personal judgement and a societal judgement.
Those with similar sets of morals tend to group together, like religious groups, and also form basic tenets of society.
Some religious groups may believe that drinking is immoral, other groups do not.
Ancient mayans sometimes sacrificed children. That would definitely be considered immoral and just plain evil today.
Just because morals are not facts does not mean that morals are irrelevant. I think they are critical and necessary, and form some of the glue that binds us together as humans, communities, and countries.

[DSynger]

Abortion is the right to take someone's life IFF you subscribe to the (very religious) notion that life begins at birth. Otherwise claiming that 200 cells is a "someone" is pretty... extreme :-).

And you know, Feinstein is not trying to ban all guns. Only restrict the ownership. I am not trying to defend the moron that she is, only to point out how much less extreme the "leftwing" Congressional positions are, compared to right wing (where you will find no dearth of people who want to restrict all abortions, or declare science a hoax, or claim that Bible is the literal truth).

Thanks to the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, a fetus at any stage is considered a person if injured or killed during the commission of a crime. What was your phrase for this... "the fucking law of the land..."

Of course she isn't trying to ban all guns. Just because she isn't actively campaigning for it doesn't me she doesn't want that end. She has admitted during the AWB legislation, if she had the votes she would have made guns illegal and confiscated them. Her illegal activities back in the 70's to try to stamp out pornography in San Fran also show how extreme she is to her own views.

[CurtisLemansky]

Another thread slowly being ruined by the War of Labels.


Sent from my UAV using Disposition Matrix 2.0

[solyanik]

Could you not see the Overton Window? I define 'left' as Statist (big centralized government) and 'right' as Libertarian (maximum individual freedom). I think you're using the old European understanding of left and right.

As my Nolan Chart (below, the star is where I scored) indicates, I'm not that interested in 'liberal-conservative' differences. The greater impact on our lives is the vertical axis, and both parties are headed 'downward' . . . .

No, I cannot use the Overton Window, because according to your interpretation, Nazies, Franco, Pinochet, Mussolini are all left wingers. Which is a spectacularly and obviously wrong statement. You need to join the reality-based community at some point...

[solyanik]

Her illegal activities back in the 70's to try to stamp out pornography in San Fran also show how extreme she is to her own views.

So now that we agree that Feinstein is no progressive (you wouldn't expect a progressive to try and ban porn, would you? For a liberal, First Amendment is even more important than Second Amendment to a conservative) - would you like me to go and dissect Pelosi's political positions? Of can you read her website yourself. Pelosi is nothing even close to a extremist. She is very much a centrist, and would make a reasonable Republican Senator in 1970s.