Yupp Purzz wrote:
It is the foundation of Trumpism - Getting back at some imaginary enemy.
Indeed. Windmills. :-)
Yupp Purzz wrote:
It is the foundation of Trumpism - Getting back at some imaginary enemy.
Indeed. Windmills. :-)
Flagpole wrote:
1) I was just being open-minded about those in the past, but if you want to pin me down on morality, I would say that generally I adhere to Descriptive Moral Relativism (also called cultural relativism), the main tenet being that morality is culturally defined, and cultures change over time. I will not accept moral absolutism. We can't base our morality on what mortal men (and notably JUST men) wrote in a book more than 2000 years ago. Is it moral to kill a woman who seizes the private parts of a man without his permission? The Bible says so. I say no. I could make a list of such things all day long.
So if you are indeed a proponent of cultural relativism then you are blowing your own argument out of the water. A cultural relativist says that there is no moral truth that crosses cultural boundaries. Therefore, there is no way you can say evangelicals are evil because in their culture they are doing what is right.
If you really want to be a cultural relativist, then we are done because you are objectively wrong.
You should study ethics a bit more. (Absolutism is just as flawed, so don't worry.)
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) I was just being open-minded about those in the past, but if you want to pin me down on morality, I would say that generally I adhere to Descriptive Moral Relativism (also called cultural relativism), the main tenet being that morality is culturally defined, and cultures change over time. I will not accept moral absolutism. We can't base our morality on what mortal men (and notably JUST men) wrote in a book more than 2000 years ago. Is it moral to kill a woman who seizes the private parts of a man without his permission? The Bible says so. I say no. I could make a list of such things all day long.
So if you are indeed a proponent of cultural relativism then you are blowing your own argument out of the water. A cultural relativist says that there is no moral truth that crosses cultural boundaries. Therefore, there is no way you can say evangelicals are evil because in their culture they are doing what is right.
If you really want to be a cultural relativist, then we are done because you are objectively wrong.
You should study ethics a bit more. (Absolutism is just as flawed, so don't worry.)
Flagpole is NEVER wrong.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Trump's Derp Crowds ? wrote:
Here are a couple of pics of Trump's latest rally "crowd."
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECDhmMfW4AAdKDt?format=jpg&name=mediumhttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECDhm27XUAAjKpQ?format=jpg&name=mediumNH Fire Marshal: Trump DID smash Elton John's arena attendance record.
• Crowd of Over 11,500.
• 8,000 people stood outside the arena in an overflow crowd area, watching the rally on jumbo TV screens.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7365155/Fire-marshal-says-Donald-Trump-DID-smash-Elton-Johns-attendance-record-New-Hampshire-arena.htmlCreepy Uncle Joe pulled a whopping 30 supporters in NH during Trump rally- bahahahaha!!
http://coupons.eagletribune.com/Trump wins again!
KAG2020
Obviously you didn't check for the Trump daily M.A.G.A. or is it KAG tweet:
Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Tweeted:
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1163066735588720640?s=17He's never really defined when America used to be great so it makes sense that he is confused.
Sally Vix wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
So if you are indeed a proponent of cultural relativism then you are blowing your own argument out of the water. A cultural relativist says that there is no moral truth that crosses cultural boundaries. Therefore, there is no way you can say evangelicals are evil because in their culture they are doing what is right.
If you really want to be a cultural relativist, then we are done because you are objectively wrong.
You should study ethics a bit more. (Absolutism is just as flawed, so don't worry.)
Flagpole is NEVER wrong.
Neither is Fat Hurts.
For those who might not care for the previous source--I trust the WSJ is okay with you?
Should Certainly Be Noted wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole is NEVER wrong.
Neither is Fat Hurts.
Mrs. Fat hurts would beg to differ.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
His rally audience is similar to the people that used to attend the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
You just put this image in my head of Frank N. Furter wearing a red Trump hat. Thanks a lot.
https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/shared/npr/styles/x_large/nprshared/201805/156391578.jpgFox News has Trump trailing Biden, Warren, Sanders, and Harris:
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
1) I was just being open-minded about those in the past, but if you want to pin me down on morality, I would say that generally I adhere to Descriptive Moral Relativism (also called cultural relativism), the main tenet being that morality is culturally defined, and cultures change over time. I will not accept moral absolutism. We can't base our morality on what mortal men (and notably JUST men) wrote in a book more than 2000 years ago. Is it moral to kill a woman who seizes the private parts of a man without his permission? The Bible says so. I say no. I could make a list of such things all day long.
So if you are indeed a proponent of cultural relativism then you are blowing your own argument out of the water. A cultural relativist says that there is no moral truth that crosses cultural boundaries. Therefore, there is no way you can say evangelicals are evil because in their culture they are doing what is right.
If you really want to be a cultural relativist, then we are done because you are objectively wrong.
You should study ethics a bit more. (Absolutism is just as flawed, so don't worry.)
Disagree. A group of people can't just hide within a bubble and declare that their "culture". Two people can't get together and decide that what they think makes them a "culture". Evangelicals are a sub-culture at best.
Also, I did not say "Evangelicals are evil." I said that those who are against equal rights for gay people are evil. There are lots of "Evangelicals" who ARE for equal rights for gay people. One of my best friends is a liberal Evangelical who believes wholeheartedly that gays should not be persecuted and that they are entitled to equal rights. The two most liberal sects of the Lutheran Church are the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada" and the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", and both of them allow homosexuals as members AND allow them to be ordained even if they are "practicing homosexuals". The Evangelical Church in Germany also has this philosophy. Lots of other Christian churches do also...as they should.
Fat hurts wrote:
Should Certainly Be Noted wrote:
Neither is Fat Hurts.
Mrs. Fat hurts would beg to differ.
Which goes a long way toward explaining why you are the way you are on here.
Flagpole wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
So if you are indeed a proponent of cultural relativism then you are blowing your own argument out of the water. A cultural relativist says that there is no moral truth that crosses cultural boundaries. Therefore, there is no way you can say evangelicals are evil because in their culture they are doing what is right.
If you really want to be a cultural relativist, then we are done because you are objectively wrong.
You should study ethics a bit more. (Absolutism is just as flawed, so don't worry.)
Disagree. A group of people can't just hide within a bubble and declare that their "culture". Two people can't get together and decide that what they think makes them a "culture". Evangelicals are a sub-culture at best.
Also, I did not say "Evangelicals are evil." I said that those who are against equal rights for gay people are evil. There are lots of "Evangelicals" who ARE for equal rights for gay people. One of my best friends is a liberal Evangelical who believes wholeheartedly that gays should not be persecuted and that they are entitled to equal rights. The two most liberal sects of the Lutheran Church are the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada" and the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", and both of them allow homosexuals as members AND allow them to be ordained even if they are "practicing homosexuals". The Evangelical Church in Germany also has this philosophy. Lots of other Christian churches do also...as they should.
OK then, you are saying fundamentalist evangelicals are evil. They indeed have their own culture. If you really believe in cultural relativism then those fundamentalist evangelicals are doing what is right. They are not evil.
Look, I warned you that ethical relativism is nonsense. It's one of the first things they teach you in ethics class.
You are wrong. Give it up.
Trump does not understand economics and how an America first ideology can actually hurt America.
Right now the US economy is doing well but there are some areas around the world heading towards recession.
And some of that has to do with Trump's America first policies and tariffs.
He also doesn't like the US to have trade deficits, meaning he wants other countries to buy our stuff.
But if other countries aren't doing well, they won't buy much of our stuff. And that huts our export business.
Since the US has by far the biggest economy in the world, Trump's policies do have an affect on the global economy.
He is dangerous to billions of people as long as he is in office.
And I don't know if he can fix it because he is too erratic.
Markets like consistency and predictability and that ain't Trump.
Trump is terrible for the economy and does not know how to make deals.
Even good business people that support him would never do business with him.
I've been saying for awhile that I doubt Tiny will participate in debates in 2020. Here is something he just said about it:
“And I think Fox is making a big mistake,” the president said when asked about the polling and the network’s leadership. “Because, you know, I'm the one that calls the shots on that — on the really big debates.”
Now the president does not actually call the shots on debates. That is done by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.
But there is one thing about debates where Tiny does call the shots. And that is whether or not he shows up.
It looks to me like he is already laying the groundwork to skip the debates unless it is done on exactly his own terms.
Fat hurts wrote:
I've been saying for awhile that I doubt Tiny will participate in debates in 2020.
Here is something he just said about it:
“And I think Fox is making a big mistake,” the president said when asked about the polling and the network’s leadership. “Because, you know, I'm the one that calls the shots on that — on the really big debates.”
Now the president does not actually call the shots on debates. That is done by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.
But there is one thing about debates where Tiny does call the shots. And that is whether or not he shows up.
It looks to me like he is already laying the groundwork to skip the debates unless it is done on exactly his own terms.
he sees the debates, like he sees EVERYTHING, as a money maker for someone and he is furious HE isn't the one making money on the debates. He sees himself as a ratings machine and feels he should be paid for the ratings the networks carrying the debates will generate.
remember after the inaugural he screamed at people that HE should get the money people were donating to the inaugural committee.
sick, sick, sick.
He gets to talk about himself at the debates and be on TV.
He loves that.
Fat hurts wrote:
I've been saying for awhile that I doubt Tiny will participate in debates in 2020.
Here is something he just said about it:
“And I think Fox is making a big mistake,” the president said when asked about the polling and the network’s leadership. “Because, you know, I'm the one that calls the shots on that — on the really big debates.”
Now the president does not actually call the shots on debates. That is done by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.
But there is one thing about debates where Tiny does call the shots. And that is whether or not he shows up.
It looks to me like he is already laying the groundwork to skip the debates unless it is done on exactly his own terms.
Let's just stick with your BIG prediction, shall we.
"Trump will not voluntarily leave office under any circumstances. He'll have to be dragged out, dead or alive."
If you turn out to be right about that one I'll give you credit. Everything else is chump change.
Fat hurts wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Disagree. A group of people can't just hide within a bubble and declare that their "culture". Two people can't get together and decide that what they think makes them a "culture". Evangelicals are a sub-culture at best.
Also, I did not say "Evangelicals are evil." I said that those who are against equal rights for gay people are evil. There are lots of "Evangelicals" who ARE for equal rights for gay people. One of my best friends is a liberal Evangelical who believes wholeheartedly that gays should not be persecuted and that they are entitled to equal rights. The two most liberal sects of the Lutheran Church are the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada" and the "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America", and both of them allow homosexuals as members AND allow them to be ordained even if they are "practicing homosexuals". The Evangelical Church in Germany also has this philosophy. Lots of other Christian churches do also...as they should.
OK then, you are saying fundamentalist evangelicals are evil. They indeed have their own culture. If you really believe in cultural relativism then those fundamentalist evangelicals are doing what is right. They are not evil.
Look, I warned you that ethical relativism is nonsense. It's one of the first things they teach you in ethics class.
You are wrong. Give it up.
1) I can't get into the minds of each individual Fundamentalist Evangelical (again, you keep putting "Evangelical" in there when I never used that word). I will say this again, any person who is against equal rights for gay people is evil. There are many non-religious people who feel that way too, so this is not an attack on religious people. You should note that major religions are moving in the direction of my point of view (as they should). The US as a whole is behind the curve, but it will happen. Even the Mormons in the last couple years have softened their stance on homosexuality. It is RIDICULOUS to forever base our morals on the writings of mortal men from 2000+ years ago. Even you subscribe to the New Testament and reject some of the Old Testament. Seems like what you are accusing me of there.
2) Evangelicals are a sub-culture at best.
3) Cultural relativism is not nonsense. You are again using different words than I am using.
4) I am correct. You are not as familiar with The Bible and Christianity as I thought you were.
Talking about predictions wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
I've been saying for awhile that I doubt Tiny will participate in debates in 2020.
Here is something he just said about it:
Now the president does not actually call the shots on debates. That is done by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.
But there is one thing about debates where Tiny does call the shots. And that is whether or not he shows up.
It looks to me like he is already laying the groundwork to skip the debates unless it is done on exactly his own terms.
Let's just stick with your BIG prediction, shall we.
"Trump will not voluntarily leave office under any circumstances. He'll have to be dragged out, dead or alive."
If you turn out to be right about that one I'll give you credit. Everything else is chump change.
I still stand by that. Remember, I did explain that I didn't mean he would be literally dragged out or even put in handcuffs. But I do think a show of force will be necessary to get him to leave.
If he loses the election he will try everything he can think of to stay in power beyond January 20, 2021.
