The anti-Christian Morality of Ethics

[4est_4est_Gump]

Stop being mean to the old, grumpy, straight (sometimes), burned out white dudes!

I'm not a white dude you ignorant redneck quiet little town cracker.

 

[Saint Peter]

Oh, right.

Next you will be telling us that you are not a republican!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh, right.

Next you will be telling us that you are not a republican!

Former Democrat Union STEWARD turned Libertarian.



Now tell us that you renounced Communism.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I usta work at a psychiatric hospital in the emergency room. That is, cops and therapists and school counselors and EMS brought people in and I sent them where they needed to go. And I made lotsa friends cuz the patients usually needed to be elsewhere than my ER. My graduate degrees are in general psychology and rehab (addictions, brain & spinal cord injuries, and chronic mental illness).

I usta assess lotsa fags. Fags are always depressed cuz people make fun of them. And they always demanded that I admit them to the female ward. I never did, and I caught plenty of PC outrage from admin, but I know the difference tween boys and girls. They go nutz when you call the clinical director and request a consult to confirm your sexual designation of the patient. HEY DOC I NEED YOU TO LOOK AT JOHNS STUFF AND TELL ME WHATCHA THINK.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Rape and murder is universally loathed. To specify "non-rapists, non-murderers ONLY" in a dating profile would be akin to saying "must use oxygen to breathe!". It's a given.

Homophobia, on the other hand, is different. While the majority of folks in America reject homophobia, there is still a small, belligerent subset of Americans who actively embrace their homophobic nature.

Homophobia is not "anti-Christian", despite the near-constant efforts of the homophobic right wing to define it as such.

 

[about_average]

Do you have one?

I'm not the one who laid claim to knowing what is not normal.

Aside from that, I already gave my opinion about what is normal. Why are you asking about something I already gave my position on?

There is also something very telling in her response to the question, an open ended question that allowed her to respond in anyway she so choose, and that 'tell' was that she choose a negative trait(s) as opposed to a positive trait(s).

You obviously didn't read the same piece I read. The one I read said this

I suggested that if she goes that route she needs to be clear about what characteristics are unacceptable to her.

I bet most rational people, when asked for a trait that is unacceptable, don't reply with a positive trait.

For the rest of your post, you're just making as little sense as the author.

Do you really mean to find out about political sensibilities before criminal tendencies?

You can generally find out about political sensibilities (telling that the author thinks a person's dislike of bigotry a "political sensibility") from just talking to someone. It's a little more difficult to find out if they are a rapist-murderer, short of a criminal background check, or observing them in the act.

The whole scenario is so ludicrous I have doubts the conversation even took place.

 

[about_average]

Former Democrat Union STEWARD turned Libertarian.

That's a laugh.

 

[wrant]

Libertarians crack me up. They are kind of like anarchists that can't commit. They believe in full on liberty, no holds barred, until there is something that bothers them or deeply offends them, then they want it limited or outlawed. We live in a society. As such, there must be a social contract.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Libertarians crack me up. They are kind of like anarchists that can't commit. They believe in full on liberty, no holds barred, until there is something that bothers them or deeply offends them, then they want it limited or outlawed. We live in a society. As such, there must be a social contract.

Yup. "Max liberties for me, but not for thee!" allows the glibertarians here to insist on no restrictions on themselves, but lotsa anti-abortion regs for "sluts" (it's "for their own good")

 

[Ishmael]

I'm not the one who laid claim to knowing what is not normal.

Aside from that, I already gave my opinion about what is normal. Why are you asking about something I already gave my position on?

You obviously didn't read the same piece I read. The one I read said thisI bet most rational people, when asked for a trait that is unacceptable, don't reply with a positive trait.

For the rest of your post, you're just making as little sense as the author.You can generally find out about political sensibilities (telling that the author thinks a person's dislike of bigotry a "political sensibility") from just talking to someone. It's a little more difficult to find out if they are a rapist-murderer, short of a criminal background check, or observing them in the act.

The whole scenario is so ludicrous I have doubts the conversation even took place.

I stand corrected on the negative choice.

Ishmael

 

[about_average]

Libertarians crack me up. They are kind of like anarchists that can't commit. They believe in full on liberty, no holds barred, until there is something that bothers them or deeply offends them, then they want it limited or outlawed. We live in a society. As such, there must be a social contract.

I consider myself a libertarian.
A few examples:
If someone wants to do something that doesn't cause harm to another, they should be be able to do it. Even if it does cause harm, if the other person is a consenting adult fully aware of the harm they are about to, or potentially about to, receive, then they should still be able to take part. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that two or more consenting adults can engage in that I think should be against the law. And there are plenty of things I think are crazy that I'd never take part in, or even want to be with someone who did.

But I'm not such an extreme libertarian that I deny there are certain things we hold in common. I don't believe someone should be able to damage those things we hold in common. I shouldn't be allowed to burn a big pile of plastic buckets in my yard, even if they are my buckets and my yard and it's easier/cheaper than taking them to the dump or recycling them.

I also recognize way too much is spent on welfare (of all types) and that we need to get the users of welfare off of it, but not by just chucking them out in the street and survival of the fittest. But I also know nearly any society will need some welfare, at least for human beings.

 

[wrant]

I consider myself a libertarian.
A few examples:
If someone wants to do something that doesn't cause harm to another, they should be be able to do it. Even if it does cause harm, if the other person is a consenting adult fully aware of the harm they are about to, or potentially about to, receive, then they should still be able to take part. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that two or more consenting adults can engage in that I think should be against the law. And there are plenty of things I think are crazy that I'd never take part in, or even want to be with someone who did.

But I'm not such an extreme libertarian that I deny there are certain things we hold in common. I don't believe someone should be able to damage those things we hold in common. I shouldn't be allowed to burn a big pile of plastic buckets in my yard, even if they are my buckets and my yard and it's easier/cheaper than taking them to the dump or recycling them.

I also recognize way too much is spent on welfare (of all types) and that we need to get the users of welfare off of it, but not by just chucking them out in the street and survival of the fittest. But I also know nearly any society will need some welfare, at least for human beings.

Here's the thing with libertarians, this school of thought has great merit. I like it and agree with it. The only problem is, once most of the ones in the public spotlight start talking and they follow their ideas to their logical conclusion: insanity ensues.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

1) Hate.





Maybe, it's who they really are and have been all along.
A_J, the Wiser

A definition of hatred, pages of it, daily, obsessive even.......

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s232/Bad_Doggie/AJhate.png

Woof!

 

[about_average]

Here's the thing with libertarians, this school of thought has great merit. I like it and agree with it. The only problem is, once most of the ones in the public spotlight start talking and they follow their ideas to their logical conclusion: insanity ensues.

Yeah, I see that too. They become as fanatical about it as the extreme conservatives or extreme liberals. Fanaticism serves no purpose other than perhaps to balance out the fanaticism from the other direction.

 

[RobDownSouth]

A definition of hatred, pages of it, daily, obsessive even.......

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s232/Bad_Doggie/AJhate.png

Woof!

Now that the chief is no longer working, Miles has some serious competition to see who can flood the General Board with more anti-Obama threads this year.
:nods:

 

[Wrong Element]

The Reclusive Leftist focuses on Vanity Fair journalist Henry Rollins. Rollins recommends that leftists "hate-fuck conservative women" and denounces Palin as a "small town hickoid" who can be bought off with a coupon to a meal at a chain restaurant.



This is fucking hilarious.

 

[Comshaw]

How have political ethics have replaced Biblically based morality in the minds of educated young people?

Consider Alex. She is a 27-year-old woman in the process of earning a PsyD degree to become a psychologist. She mentioned she was having a difficult time finding appropriate men to date and was considering an online dating service. I suggested that if she goes that route she needs to be clear about what characteristics are unacceptable to her. She thought for a moment then said, “One thing I cannot tolerate is homophobia.”

Of all the advantages a worthy life partner could bring to this young woman, and of all the harm that an unworthy partner might inflict, the first thing she identified is a young man’s view regarding homosexuality.

I asked, “If you could date a rapist-murderer or a homophobe, you’d choose the rapist-murderer?” She laughed nervously. Feeling sorry for this daughter of a world gone mad, I said, “I’m serious, think about it. A woman is vulnerable to the men she dates. Do you really mean to find out about political sensibilities before criminal tendencies?” I asked if she believed the behaviors associated with homophobia were morally worse than sex crimes. She said, “Psychologists don’t make moral judgments!” She went on to explain that homophobia was as bad as any crime because it killed more people than murder by causing suicide, addictions, spread of HIV, and crimes against gay people.

I said, “OK, you don’t like the word moral. How did you learn your ethical code?” She said she had been taught tolerance toward gay people all her life. I asked her if she had been raised in a particular religion. She replied, “No. Most of the problems in the world come from religion!”

...

Alex’s political ethics of progressivism are based on unnatural deism: “I am my body, and my brain-based experience.” Unnatural deism is godlessness in which the needs and wants of the body, mediated by the brain, are elevated to pre-eminent, quasi-divine status. Because it is political, contemporary unnatural deism does not treat all bodies equally, unlike the unifying power of natural theism.

Ethics are morals for anti-immoral people. Nevertheless, Alex's viewpoint on homosexuality is not even a true ethical code – it is an affectation. An ethical code functions to inform difficult choices and modify behavior, often in the direction of giving something up. Alex's championing of sex and gender minorities (the darlings of psychology) enables her to feel good about herself without making any personal sacrifices.

...

Let's say she falls in love with a man of the 'proper' politics, but he starts cheating on her with another woman (or man), or perhaps drains her bank account before absconding. At that point, she might find his beliefs about homosexuality do little to assuage her broken heart. Nor is it likely Alex would enjoy being one of four wives, however politically correct her husband might be.

Deborah C. Tyler. American Thinker

Jeremiah Johnson

Del Gue: [Del and Jeremiah have run into a Flathead scouting party] He wants to know if you are the great warrior who avenges the crazy women that lives in the Wolf Tail Valley. She's big medicine and you are too, if you be that man.

Jeremiah Johnson: [the Indian begins talking in a very loud voice] Say, why's he yellin'?

Del Gue: Scared of ya.


Comshaw

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm not the one who laid claim to knowing what is not normal.

...

And I did???

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The critique would go well and Non-Reason.com...



... the point is that of all the deal-breakers in the world, her go-to was that. That is not a normal human reaction and may go to the root of why she's having trouble finding men, I'll bet there are a whole list of things that she cannot tolerate, say, like, love of sports...

Oh, I get it now...



I forgot the parse master would pick out one word; I think to be more precise I should have said normative for the majority of non-liberals, but increasingly, as pointed out in the piece, normative for those steeped in Leftist Liberal Academia where defending cop-killers and Hamas are badges of authenticity for their belief system.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That's a laugh.

Why?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Libertarians crack me up. They are kind of like anarchists that can't commit. They believe in full on liberty, no holds barred, until there is something that bothers them or deeply offends them, then they want it limited or outlawed. We live in a society. As such, there must be a social contract.

Blanket standard slander of the straw-man sort...

 

[RobDownSouth]

How's the job search going, Chief?

Oh, I get it now...



I forgot the parse master would pick out one word; I think to be more precise I should have said normative for the majority of non-liberals, but increasingly, as pointed out in the piece, normative for those steeped in Leftist Liberal Academia where defending cop-killers and Hamas are badges of authenticity for their belief system.

Blanket standard slander of the straw-man sort...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yeah, I see that too. They become as fanatical about it as the extreme conservatives or extreme liberals. Fanaticism serves no purpose other than perhaps to balance out the fanaticism from the other direction.

So, if someone calls themselves a Libertarian, to avoid being called a fanatic, they must conform to your, obviously not fanatical, purview...



... that seems to be the same standard applied to Republicans, Christians, Jews, etc., from the tolerance and diversity crowd.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I consider myself a libertarian.
A few examples:
If someone wants to do something that doesn't cause harm to another, they should be be able to do it. Even if it does cause harm, if the other person is a consenting adult fully aware of the harm they are about to, or potentially about to, receive, then they should still be able to take part. Off the top of my head I can't think of anything that two or more consenting adults can engage in that I think should be against the law. And there are plenty of things I think are crazy that I'd never take part in, or even want to be with someone who did.

But I'm not such an extreme libertarian that I deny there are certain things we hold in common. I don't believe someone should be able to damage those things we hold in common. I shouldn't be allowed to burn a big pile of plastic buckets in my yard, even if they are my buckets and my yard and it's easier/cheaper than taking them to the dump or recycling them.

I also recognize way too much is spent on welfare (of all types) and that we need to get the users of welfare off of it, but not by just chucking them out in the street and survival of the fittest. But I also know nearly any society will need some welfare, at least for human beings.

Sounds pretty damned extreme to me.

You seem to have a real animus towards the welfare of the less fortunate.

 

[RobDownSouth]

How's the job search going, Chief?

So, if someone calls themselves a Libertarian, to avoid being called a fanatic, they must conform to your, obviously not fanatical, purview...



... that seems to be the same standard applied to Republicans, Christians, Jews, etc., from the tolerance and diversity crowd.

Tell us again, Chief, how people who insist on seeing shades of grey, instead of simple black and white, are morally and philosophically inferior to you.

Then define fanaticism for us once again.