Not My Type?

Before you go down that road I’d like you to read the first post of yours I responded to. To jump ahead here I can’t believe you taught ethics. I hope not for long.

I have repeatedly in our discussion. But you are unable to see things outside your narrow focus on the issue.

A grade of F from you on this subject I’d wear as a badge of honor. But I guess I’ll play. Not having been to your lectures it’s hard to say what your really after as some people use terms interchangeably (which I’ve done out of laziness at times)while others do not.

Moral principles are one’s ideas on what is fair, right or wrong, and how one should behave in interaction with others. Ethics as I’ve always understood are less personal, more societal norms that members of whatever society are expected to conform to independently if necessary of personal beliefs on what’s correct. I guess ethical behavior is where the rubber meets the road. Moral principles in action.

If you fancy yourself an expert on definitions etc. I’m open to learning from you. Seriously.

It’s sad really that you still think the political ideologies we have today have the same moral imperatives. The fact you think all political parties want to reduce gun violence is absurd. Absolutely absurd. That’s the worst example you could have used. The fact you did proves my point about you not understanding your own party.

That said, I agree individuals within parties have varying beliefs, and that party platforms evolve or devolve over time.

Well, I’m just going by your statements in this thread. When one doesn’t practice what they preach it’s difficult to tell for sure what they think.

That’s because it was never my intention to make a case for or against Trump or the 24. I’ve simply been trying to get you to understand what your party’s past behavior has resulted in and to try and get you to be a little more careful about judging people and circumstances prematurely.

 

Nope you are proven wrong and everyone knows it especially you

I realize you hate it but it is fact I have conclusively proven it is you and only you who is biased.

I presented evidence you presented..... Nothing except bias and hatred

Deal with it

 

You haven't proven a single damn thing, other than how obviously biased you are.

 

On topic. You changed the subject.

Two semesters. Filling in for the professor in charge of the course on his sabbatical. He hand-picked me to substitute for him. And, even though I did great in all my Ethics courses, my interest was more in the area of Epistemology.

You have not.

People can use them interchangeably in a colloquial conversation. Most definitely not if the discussion is specifically about morals.

Not too bad. I'd give it a B-.

The concepts are not inaccurate but a bit "sketchy".

A moral principle is the principle by which we establish that something is right or wrong. Ethics are the specific actions that are right or wrong.

I usually explain it this way. Ethics are like lists with two columns. The Good column and the Bad column. These lists can be, for example, the Constitution, rules, the Ten Commandments, Codes of Ethics, ... These lists contain good and bad actions. "Thou shalt not kill", "Don't run around the pool", "Pay your taxes", "Do no harm", ... and so on. All these are ethics. And they refer to actions.

Moral principles are the reason why we put these actions in the good or bad column. In other words, it answers the question "Why?". Why does killing go in the "bad" column? Why does "paying taxes" go in the "good" column?... and so on.

Huh? Which political party doesn't want to reduce gun violence?

Am I missing something? What the devil are you talking about?

Well, then you picked the wrong thread. Because this is what this one was about.

 

Wrong I have proven your bias beyond question

We know this and by we I mean you especially deny all you like but it is nothing more than childish denial of reality.

I proved I have no bias of my own here.

You are out of your league kid

 

You keep saying the same useless crap over and over.

This seems to be a rightie thing.

The Trump school of debate.

 

And it is true

I have proven it you only whined

 

Got to get the last word in just like Trump.

Excuse me! Excuse me! Wrong! Wrong!

I win!

Man, I'm a great debater. Never lose, always win!

 

Except in this case where I crushed you with evidence while you merely whined a bunch of partisan bias

 

Excuse me! Wrong!

 

You are not excused but yes you are proven wrong

 

No. You changed the subject from Trump’s statement to criticism of anyone who does not rush to judgment here.

I responded to your change of subject.

Cool. Thanks for sharing. Do you enjoy teaching?

Well, likely we just have a different idea of what that is. For me, standing up for them is listening to what they say without pre judging them one way or the other. The way I’d prefer to be treated.

Good to know. Not in my wheelhouse so I’ll probably disappoint you again at some time.

This is fascinating. I intentionally avoid the use of the terms “right” and “wrong” with progressives here because I’ve been lambasted repeatedly for doing so. But I agree with you and had to think of a way around it. I agree without those terms much is lacking. It’s a bit refreshing to talk to a progressive that can utter the terms without losing their lunch.

We still are worlds apart on what things specifically are right or wrong and why, but at least we have the common ground of the concept’s existence.

Sounds good to me. Thanks.

Let’s say an old college buddy calls you up and says he’ll be in town on Friday. Says he’s hungry for a good steak and will stop by in his Avis rental and pick you up at 6:00 and treat you to one.

Six o’clock Friday rolls around and he shows up as promised. You’re checking out the dash of the new model year rental he’s driving and aren’t really paying attention to where he’s headed. But when the car stops and you snap out of the car inspection you are at the McDonalds drive through call box. You watch as your buddy orders two steaks medium rare. The order girl giggles and says “we don’t serve steaks sir”. Your buddy looks at you and says “oh well, but I know McDonald’s fries are better than baked potatoes” and he orders you each large fries. You drive away munching fries.

You are paying attention now though and are slightly less surprised when the next stop is Wendy’s. He orders steak again. This time when rebuffed he gets you both a Frosty because “they are better than tea at steakhouses”.

This continues until you are full of egg rolls, fries, milkshakes, and tacos.

Finally you say you have an early morning Saturday because you promised the wife you’d take her to visit her mother 300 miles away and he takes you home.

Now, as someone interested in epistemology, at what point do you question your buddy ever believed he wanted a steak?

It was about Trump saying something some saw as witty and some saw as a poor attempt at a defense. You changed it to calling anyone who doesn’t rush to judgement and wants more facts a cultist. I simply stepped in to show why people are reacting to Trump the way they are.

 

That doesn't even make sense.

I enjoy the classroom but not the rest. Teaching is extremely hard work for very little pay. I admire teachers for what they do.

I'm not talking about pre-judging. I'm talking about post-judging. They have all said everything they will ever say. A real honest moral human being reacts to what they hear. They "listen" but they don't just sit there forever. They take what they hear and use logic and deduction... the qualities that make us human. We reach conclusions. The conclusion doesn't have to be that a wrong was committed (either rape or false accusation). But it does have to be honest and based on what is known. Here we have a lot of information. Saying that a conclusion reached based on that information is "prejudgment" is absolutely dishonest (intellectually speaking).

I don't think I would pose that as an epistemological question, but it still doesn't answer the question: which is the political party that you believe doesn't want to stop gun violence?

It's off-topic, though. So I guess you don't have to answer here.

 

Hmmm. You wrote it. I just responded to it.

Yeh, I was lucky to have a lot of good teachers. I’ll be eternally grateful to them. Back in the everyone wants to be a fireman age bracket I thought I wanted to teach. Good thing I changed my mind. The repetitiveness would kill me. I did enough tutoring to see how rewarding it can be though.

You don’t know anything about the 24. The fact you keep using that number proves it. You are pre-judging because you don’t even want information that is available before making your conclusions.

At least one accuser has filed in federal court. So there is no way they have all said all they will ever say. But you are willfully ignorant of all this. Yet you still say it’s a moral human’s reaction to conclude now.

Go ahead and keep making judgements without even all available information. You pick your own “morals”. But don’t be surprised when you are taken less seriously over time because of the eventual inevitable consequences of doing so.

I was trying to point out you have the tools and knowledge to figure out which party doesn’t want to stop gun violence. The same way you figure out your buddy really didn’t want a steak.

I like to give people I have long discussions with the last word. So unless you have another question (which I’m glad to answer) I’ll let you have the parting shots. You’ve been a good sport and shared your knowledge and it’s appreciated. Hope you have a good 4th!

 

Wrong!

 

I am correct and proved you wrong

And you know this is true

 

I wrote no such thing. Three options: show the post where you read that quote, retract, or be known as a liar.

Ok. Now you have come to the point where you run out of arguments and you just ... make things up.

How the hell do you know what I know or don't know? I don't "want" information? Where do you get that idea? What information do you have that everybody else doesn't?

Answer!

What nonsense! What else will she say? Sure, they can give more detail, but the bottom line stays the same.

Of course it's impossible to predict the future. What I'm saying is that what they have said, plus what Trump has said is enough to reach many conclusions. But you will just sit there forever. Because the information that is out there condemns Trump. And, as a Trump cultist, you would never accept that.

That's the point in all of this.