Did The Tuck get Cucked here?

[cincymma79]

What did this response just accomplish?

Your argument was that the guy shooting those republicans is justified. Mine is it isn't. There's no middle ground. I'm right. You're not. So test your theory and see if anybody backs you

 

[Greoric]

Your argument was that the guy shooting those republicans is justified. Mine is it isn't. There's no middle ground. I'm right. You're not. So test your theory and see if anybody backs you

That's not my assertion, and that wouldn't be a test for its justification.

 

[Greoric]

This is sad. Even for you. Don't waste my time again unless you can offer solid evidence to support your claim.

(And, yes, if it saves you time, I've read this steaming pile of pseudo-intellectual dogshit.)

The best part is any opinion you have about what "should" be the case is proof of the point. I only have to show that there is such a thing as ethics. Absent a better description, I just have to show that the concept of maximized harmony of any given group of individuals exists. If varying states of harmony (or synergy, or whatever you want to call it) exists in groups of people then its maximization also has to follow.

And just to clarify I better not catch you making a value judgment besides stoic statements about actions as they are or what you predict their out come to be.

You following? Because as soon as you make any value judgement you are demonstrating an ethical standard you think should be the case. That means no more opinions on UHC, wealth redistribution, and condemnation of conservatives, condemnation of anything or any action, as well as any support for anything or any action. You want a majority rule? Sorry bitch!! That's a proposed applied ethical standard.

 

[ocfightfan]

The problem is that liberals only consider it a tyranny if they are out of power or not getting their way.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You following? Because as soon as you make any value judgement you are demonstrating an ethical standard you think should be the case. That means no more opinions on UHC, wealth redistribution, and condemnation of conservatives, condemnation of anything or any action, as well as any support for anything or any action. You want a majority rule? Sorry bitch!! That's a proposed applied ethical standard.

Majority rule is just how we decide which values will drive policy. I don't think anyone believes that whatever the majority decides is good, but a lot of people have decided that allowing a process by which everyone has their say and then the majority view (with certain restrictions) will temporarily prevail is better than just allowing or even encouraging everyone who doesn't get their way to start murdering people.

 

[Greoric]

Majority rule is just how we decide which values will drive policy. I don't think anyone believes that whatever the majority decides is good,

The first part isn't even a factual statement. We don't have a representative democracy, and even if we did that still wouldn't be policy decided on by majority rule.

In any event though, there's plenty of people on here that subscribe to the majority rule is moral philospohy. @m52nickerson is one. In this thread alone, it looks like @cincymma79 is another.

 

[TheGreatA]

I would say that what constitutes as government tyranny, are policies that actively seek to under-mine the constitutionally protected liberties of the American population. For example, an outlandish scenario of Trump wanting to wire-tap the houses of all American citizens, in order to provide more "security", or whatever, and sending out SWAT squads to raid everybody's houses.

In this case, I'm not sure if the shooter was truly protesting a lost liberty, or rather a lost privilege granted by the state. There are certain liberties that men must possess, that ought to be protected by the government. But the luxuries offered by the modern welfare state ought not to be included among these born rights. Otherwise we will have a very difficult time molding our societies to fit the needs of a particular economic situation, without a lot of unnecessary blood being shed, each time that old structures are deconstructed in favour of new ones.

There's a certain point when one is morally justified to resort to cold-blooded murder, for political reasons. But it is the same point at which all of us are morally justified to resort to lethal violence, and that is the point of immediate endangerment to one's livelihood.

Not sure if this is such a case.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The first part isn't even a factual statement. We don't have a representative democracy, and even if we did that still wouldn't be policy decided on by majority rule.

Of course it's a factual statement. I recognize that we have some counter-majoritarian aspects to the system, but that's the basic principle.

In any event though, there's plenty of people on here that subscribe to the majority rule is moral philospohy. @m52nickerson is one. In this thread alone, it looks like @cincymma79 is another.

Well, let's see what they say. I'm guessing that you are, as usual, misrepresenting opposing views (or possibly legitimately misunderstanding them).

The fact that I had to make the post you're responding to tells me that you know nothing of your own country's history and have had no exposure to serious political thought. In a way, I envy you, as you have a great experience ahead if you choose to go that route.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I would say that what constitutes as government tyranny, are policies that actively seek to under-mine the constitutionally protected liberties of the American population. For example, an outlandish scenario of Trump wanting to wire-tap the houses of all American citizens, in order to provide more "security", or whatever.

I think it comes down just to undermining the legitimacy of our system of gov't. Screwing with election results, attacking press freedom, silencing criticism, throwing people in prison inappropriately, etc. I think he's kind of skating up to that stuff but won't go all the way over the line.

 

[Greoric]

Of course it's a factual statement. I recognize that we have some counter-majoritarian aspects to the system, but that's the basic principle.

Those exceptions make it a republic, so its not a representative democracy.

Well, let's see what they say. I'm guessing that you are, as usual, misrepresenting opposing views (or possibly legitimately misunderstanding them).

Reads like you're projecting again.

 

[WiolentOne]

Here we go again...

This is identical to the religious argument that God exists whether X number of people choose to believe it or not.

Provide empirical proof of the existence of this vaunted "ethical standard".

And without any appeal to the number of people who have either chosen to adopt it or who may benefit from it.

However there is data to support the notion of a universal standard of morality in the fact that the golden rule is found in most - if not all - cultures.

It's not the empirical proof you want but were dealing with the study of people here.

Regardless of your views on morality being objective or subjective the fact is the process and faculties are biologically rooted/innate (much like language).

Well, at least that's how I view it.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Reads like you're projecting again.

So you're rubber and I'm glue?

As I said, you do it all the time (and I never do), and I'll wait to see if you did it this time.

I note that you are unable to get your mind around the actual argument for democratic gov't. Maybe go search Molyneux's archives and you'll find something.

 

[Greoric]

I would say that what constitutes as government tyranny, are policies that actively seek to under-mine the constitutionally protected liberties of the American population.

They already are acting outside of the enumerated powers in Article 1 by leagues. The shooting is only unjustified by virtue of his intent to affect change.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Only republicans are allowed to control the narrative of what makes up a tyrannical government.

 

[Greoric]

As I said, you do it all the time (and I never do), and I'll wait to see if you did it this time.

My God. Look at that. Another projection. Color me shocked.

 

[Jack V Savage]

My God. Look at that. Another projection. Color me shocked.

My God, more ducking of substance and responding with dishonest personal attacks. It's funny how mad you get when your arguments are shown to be wrong.

 

[Greoric]

My God, more ducking of substance and responding with dishonest personal attacks. It's funny how mad you get when your arguments are shown to be wrong.

What substance?

 

[Greoric]

@Jack V Savage, legitimate question for you.

Doesn't it ever cross your mind to ask, maybe its you? With all the recursive examples of people telling you exactly the same thing about your dishonesty, your projections, and your strawmen, doesn't it ever cross your mind that maybe you're the problem?

Edit: Speaking of the devil... look at the following post.

 

[Huked on foniks]

You didn't ask for an explanation that an ethical standard exists beyond whatever a fleeting majority (or any sized group) proposes. You just tried to contort the argument into a strawman to say I'm advocating for a hyper-relativist view of ethics (the precise opposite), just like you did with @Cubo de Sangre a couple days ago, and almost everyone in here.

@Jack V Savage does that a lot. He's very manipulative and extremely dishonest. The funny thing is, is once you take away all the extra irrelevant bullshit he likes to throw into discussions (because he thinks it gives him the upper hand) you find out he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

 

[TheGreatA]

They already are acting outside of the enumerated powers in Article 1 by leagues. The shooting is only unjustified by virtue of his intent to affect change.

I don't think the shooter's motive was tied to any particular abuses of power, but rather his general frustrations with Republicans and their policies, along with his poor life situation at the time.

Even if I shot Stalin himself, because he had bumped into my car, this wouldn't be morally justifiable in my view.