The never-ending POTUS Election thread....

[NoMoRedJ]

I don't give two shits what you believe. You debate like a four year old. When you can't bullshit your way out of some ridiculous comment you made, you resort to the ad hominems and give up all semblance of staying on topic.

You're like a broken record. I dont need to BS my way out of anything with you. When you reply to a post of mine and its obvious you have no clue based on your reply its obvious that you either lack reading comprehension or deliberately misrepresent what I posted or just have no idea because it went over your head. So whichever it may be, its pointless for me to waste any more time trying to explain anything to you.

A 4yr old would enjoy a pissing contest with you and "debate" like you, missing the point and replying in a way that shows you dont get it. How ironic you say somebody else debates like a 4 yr old.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Unless they're witches.

How does one historical example change it?

 

[Scot]

Are you guys seeing any Trump adds yet?

I'm in CA and I've seen a couple Hillary adds on local tv but only one Trump add and it was only on once

I'm wondering if he is not focusing on CA because he knows this shitty state is a lost cause. Is he spending his money more wisely in the swing states and ones he actually stands a chance on winning?

 

[dbair1967]

Are you guys seeing any Trump adds yet?

I'm in CA and I've seen a couple Hillary adds on local tv but only one Trump add and it was only on once

I'm wondering if he is not focusing on CA because he knows this shitty state is a lost cause. Is he spending his money more wisely in the swing states and ones he actually stands a chance on winning?

Unless something changes a lot I doubt he is going to win in California. Too many retards.

He's probably spending his money in mostly the contested battle ground states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, N Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan etc etc

He collected over 80 million for July alone.

 

[dbair1967]

LA Times poll today, Clinton +1

This has to be driving the left wing media and the DNC/Kunt campaign insane. The media has been on the all out, non stop bash Trump onslaught for ten+ days now and STILL he is closing the gap on her to where its now a virtual tie.

 

[peplaw06]

How does one historical example change it?

How about killing someone in self defense? How about Bin Laden? How about Saddam? How about the death penalty? How about the people killed by police?

How many more examples do you need?

 

[Hoofbite]

How does one historical example change it?

Change what?

You can't seriously claim that morality isn't to a certain degree subjective, and then ask how the acceptance of presently immoral behavior in the past makes a difference.

That's the definition of subjective.

 

[peplaw06]

He doesn't know what subjective means either. Or ironic.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

How about killing someone in self defense? How about Bin Laden? How about Saddam? How about the death penalty? How about the people killed by police?

How many more examples do you need?

Those are not examples of murder.

Next try.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Change what?

You can't seriously claim that morality isn't to a certain degree subjective, and then ask how the acceptance of presently immoral behavior in the past makes a difference.

That's the definition of subjective.

Ok so we are on the same page. What were you referring to when you mentioned witches?

 

[NoMoRedJ]

He doesn't know what subjective means either. Or ironic.

Ha Ha, as if you are in any position of credibility to be a judge on that.

Peps fantasy world of reality only applies for you, not the rest of us.

 

[peplaw06]

Those are not examples of murder.

Next try.

They are intentionally taking a person's life... and they are justified by certain subjective circumstances. Just like most morals.

 

[peplaw06]

Ha Ha, as if you are in any position of credibility to be a judge on that.

Peps fantasy world of reality only applies for you, not the rest of us.

I'm basing it on your misuse of the terms and your misunderstanding of the usage of those terms in this thread. I can just read your posts and determine you don't know what they mean.

 

[Hoofbite]

Ok so we are on the same page. What were you referring to when you mentioned witches?

Read the post. Morality is largely subjective based on time and place.

Couldn't burn someone today because they're a witch. At one time you could.

 

[VTA]

Read the post. Morality is largely subjective based on time and place.

Couldn't burn someone today because they're a witch. At one time you could.

That doesn’t bolster your point at all. Burning people at the stake was never right at any point in history. The fact that it occurred historically doesn’t suddenly fit it into a moral hand basket.

Shoving Jews in ovens occurred en masse at some point in history and no one alive - probably not even the people doing it - thought it could be morally justified by it’s time and place. We can’t have everyone in diapers; people that do wrong generally know they’re doing wrong.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

They are intentionally taking a person's life... and they are justified by certain subjective circumstances. Just like most morals.

You're confusing issues. Morals are absolute, not subjective.

How about killing someone in self defense? How about Bin Laden? How about Saddam? How about the death penalty? How about the people killed by police?

How many more examples do you need?

Self defense is not murder.

Bin Laden, Sadaam, capital punishment, all are different than murder. There is a penalty being paid for crimes committed. Now maybe Sadaam is a different scenario in the way it was carried out, but essentially the same as capital punishment.

And none of this in any way demonstrates that morals are subjective.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

Read the post. Morality is largely subjective based on time and place.

Couldn't burn someone today because they're a witch. At one time you could.

People and societies do not determine or establish morals. They choose to adhere to them or they choose not to. Because a certain segment of a society at a certain time in history burned witches doesnt mean it was morally right at that time.

 

[peplaw06]

That doesn’t bolster your point at all. Burning people at the stake was never right at any point in history. The fact that it occurred historically doesn’t suddenly fit it into a moral hand basket.

I disagree. The people who burned "witches" at the stake did that thinking they were justified by their religious beliefs. When it was going on, those were the largely held beliefs of that society of people... they had trials and everything.

Shoving Jews in ovens occurred en masse at some point in history and no one alive - probably not even the people doing it - thought it could be morally justified by it’s time and place. We can’t have everyone in diapers; people that do wrong generally know they’re doing wrong.

There are some instances where one person, or one group of people, do morally reprehensible things that do not reflect the beliefs of their society as a whole. That's not what we're discussing here. There are thousands of examples of a society's largely accepted morals changing over time.

 

[NoMoRedJ]

I disagree. The people who burned "witches" at the stake did that thinking they were justified by their religious beliefs. When it was going on, those were the largely held beliefs of that society of people... they had trials and everything.

There are some instances where one person, or one group of people, do morally reprehensible things that do not reflect the beliefs of their society as a whole. That's not what we're discussing here. There are thousands of examples of a society's largely accepted morals changing over time.

Once again you are missing the point. People and societies dont determine morals. They choose to adhere or not adhere to them. Morals arent changing. Morals arent subjective. Morals are absolutes.

 

[peplaw06]

You're confusing issues. Morals are absolute, not subjective.

I'm not confusing anything. You're just wrong.

Self defense is not murder.

Killing someone in self defense is a justifiable homicide.

Bin Laden, Sadaam, capital punishment, all are different than murder. There is a penalty being paid for crimes committed. Now maybe Sadaam is a different scenario in the way it was carried out, but essentially the same as capital punishment.

They are intentional killings of people that is justified by society because of the circumstances. Some societies allow for the death penalty and some do not. Even different states in the US have different requirements to put someone to death. Those requirements are subjectively determined by each state, or society. There isn't one universally accepted standard.... if there were, then it would be an absolute.