Canada's Fruit Machine

[alang1216]

You're mighty subjective. Biden and Obama lied to you constantly and you licked it right up like a kitten laps up cream.

You have no idea what I like to lick. Certainly not Biden or Obama.

I make a distinction between when a politician tells me what he wishes to do and a politician who never intends to follow through on his promises. I'm still waiting for Trump's healthcare plan from 2016.

 

[alang1216]

YES! Man, the police knocked on my door Sunday morning and forced me to go to church! I couldn't believe it! We're in a theocracy!

You mean not in a theocracy yet.

Trump boasts of ‘Top 100 Victories for People of Faith’​

 

[alang1216]

No you don't.
You don't hold them to any standard or you wouldn't have voted for Joe Biden, among others.

Not voting for Biden in 2020 would have essentially meant a vote for Trump. The choice of the more honest candidate was easy. Even Trump's supporters don't believe him.

 

[alang1216]

I don't like it either.

But if you believed Harris or Biden, you are a fool.

Who did they run against?

 

[alang1216]

Each side in the battle over Israel's right to exist thinks they are fighting evil so the evil they commit is justified or good.

I love when you get to judge the evil and the good.

 

[alang1216]

Have you ever lied?

Never!

 

[alang1216]

So much to unpack here.

1. I'm not for theocracies. I like Republics.
2. Absolute morals aren't the problem in Iran. Like always it's the people.
3. I'm not advocating the kind of morals you think I am. I'm advocating objectivity instead of moral relativity. Absolute morals are another way of saying standards and the only standards I care about are honesty and accountability.
4. Our government is the way it is because there's no honesty and accountability.

1. me too
2. The people don't support the system in place there. The Mullahs are theocrats with an absolute understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Sound familiar.
3. The Mullahs get their morality from the Koran, you get yours from your "objectivity". Two sides of the same coin.
4. We get what we deserve.

 

[ding]

I love when you get to judge the evil and the good.

Is that what I was doing? Or was I stating reality. No one in a war thinks they are evil. They think their enemy is evil. Am I wrong? Each side justifies their acts of barbary as good. Am I wrong?

I'm just going to repost my post in its entirety since you decided to cherry pick it to take what I wrote out of context.

If no one ever rationalized they were doing right when they were doing wrong, there wouldn't be a need to make moral arguments. In our society it is common to lie and be deceitful. It's acceptable. A democrat or republican will argue something that is a lie and other democrats and republicans will go right along with it. Why? Because they are fighting evil and it's justified. Think of what's going on right now. Each side in the battle over Israel's right to exist thinks they are fighting evil so the evil they commit is justified or good.

Arguing morals are relative and truth is subjective invalidates the line between good and evil without people even ever knowing they are doing it. It makes it OK to justify doing almost anything. Which is almost always driven by power, greed, resources, money and survival. We were created for good. That's why we struggle with the way the world is, but a Darwinian world doesn't care about good. It only cares about winning.

So, to answer your question, I'm not always right, but reality is. So when I discover the objective truth about something, that's what I argue until I am convinced that I made a mistake and there is something new I should be arguing. If people really believed that God is Truth, maybe there wouldn't be a need to make moral arguments anymore.

 

[ding]

Never!

Exactly my point. Thanks.

 

[ding]

1. me too

Technically our country has for some time now; Jewish and Muslim; Both Republicans and Democrats; All in the name of national security.

2. The people don't support the system in place there.

I don't know that and I doubt anyone else does either. You can claim some do and some don't. But if they all or most did, I can't imagine it would remain so.

The Mullahs are theocrats with an absolute understanding of what is right and what is wrong. Sound familiar.

No. Not to me it doesn't. Unless you are talking about all the moral arguments you make. What I do know is that it is none of our business what they do. It almost sounds like you think attacking Iran is a good idea, Donny.

3. The Mullahs get their morality from the Koran,

They say they do but I think they are like most human beings on this planet. They are full of rationalizations and at the end of the day they do whatever it is they want and call that moral. Much like you.

you get yours from your "objectivity". Two sides of the same coin.

Hardly. Subjectivity is like evil. It only exists as the negation of the thing that exists. It's one coin and the negation of the coin. It's not two sides of the same coin. Unless of course you think hot and cold are two sides of the same coin.

4. We get what we deserve.

Sometimes. Not always. But we always get what we get.

 

[alang1216]

Is that what I was doing? Or was I stating reality. No one in a war thinks they are evil. They think their enemy is evil. Am I wrong? Each side justifies their acts of barbary as good. Am I wrong?

I'm just going to repost my post in its entirety since you decided to cherry pick it to take what I wrote out of context.

If no one ever rationalized they were doing right when they were doing wrong, there wouldn't be a need to make moral arguments. In our society it is common to lie and be deceitful. It's acceptable. A democrat or republican will argue something that is a lie and other democrats and republicans will go right along with it. Why? Because they are fighting evil and it's justified. Think of what's going on right now. Each side in the battle over Israel's right to exist thinks they are fighting evil so the evil they commit is justified or good.

Arguing morals are relative and truth is subjective invalidates the line between good and evil without people even ever knowing they are doing it. It makes it OK to justify doing almost anything. Which is almost always driven by power, greed, resources, money and survival. We were created for good. That's why we struggle with the way the world is, but a Darwinian world doesn't care about good. It only cares about winning.

So, to answer your question, I'm not always right, but reality is. So when I discover the objective truth about something, that's what I argue until I am convinced that I made a mistake and there is something new I should be arguing. If people really believed that God is Truth, maybe there wouldn't be a need to make moral arguments anymore.

I love that you get to judge what is evil and what is good so, no, not out of context, it applies to the entire post.

 

[alang1216]

I don't know that and I doubt anyone else does either. You can claim some do and some don't. But if they all or most did, I can't imagine it would remain so.

Actually we do.

Survey Report on “The Islamic Republic: Yes or No”​

April 28, 2019

Four decades after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, GAMAAN asked Iranians if they would vote for the system of the Islamic Republic in a hypothetical referendum. The English version of GAMAAN’s survey report can be downladed here.

Summary of the Survey Findings​

• More than 204 thousand Iranians have responded to this survey, 180 thousand of whom stated to be inside Iran. The findings of this report reflect the views of literate people over 19 years old in Iran (equivalent to 85% of eligible voters); the results can be attributed to this population with a 95% confidence level. The survey is an attempt to systematically measure and record the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic as a form of government, according to Iranians and in an environment where these questions cannot be publicly asked.
• About 79% said that in a free referendum they would vote NO to the Islamic Republic.
• About 71% said that they would vote NO to the Islamic Republic regardless of context, 18% would vote YES to the Islamic Republic in any situation, and 11% stated that they prefer the continuation of the status quo and vote YES to the Islamic Republic until an alternative regime does not appear as an option.
• About 68% stated that they do not intend to vote in the parliamentary elections (Islamic Consultative Assembly) of March 2020, while 18% said that they will participate in the elections. Approximately 14% said they haven’t decided yet.
• The results reveal that 35% of those who voted for Raisi and 96% of those who voted for Rouhani in the 2017 presidential elections would say NO to the Islamic Republic in a free referendum. In other words, 65% of Raisi’s voters and 4% of Rouhani’s voters in the 2017 presidential elections would say YES to the Islamic Republic in a free referendum.

No. Not to me it doesn't. Unless you are talking about all the moral arguments you make.

That I make? That's rich.

They say they do but I think they are like most human beings on this planet. They are full of rationalizations and at the end of the day they do whatever it is they want and call that moral. Much like you.

There are none so blind...

Hardly. Subjectivity is like evil. It only exists as the negation of the thing that exists. It's one coin and the negation of the coin. It's not two sides of the same coin. Unless of course you think hot and cold are two sides of the same coin.

Try that one again, you swung and missed.

Sometimes. Not always. But we always get what we get.

Very profound.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes and yes. 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true

Yes, and XX = Female and XY = Male is objectively true.

 

[ding]

I love that you get to judge what is evil and what is good so, no, not out of context, it applies to the entire post.

You aren't getting. It's Darwinian and humans construct the moral arguments. And when they do, they never see themselves as immoral. You are like the poster child for that. So, no. I am not deciding what is moral. I am deciding it is Darwinian.

 

[ding]

Actually we do.

Then why aren't they overthrowing their government?

That I make? That's rich.

Every argument you make is a moral argument. And according to you, you never choose to be immoral. I argue war isn't moral it's Darwinian and no one ever admits what they do is immoral and you cry I get to deicide what is moral and immoral.

There are none so blind...

...as those who claim they are never immoral or choose to be immoral.

Try that one again, you swung and missed.

Can you explain how? Subjectivity is the absence of objectivity. Objectivity is the absence of bias.

Very profound.

Yep. Sometimes we get what we deserve and sometimes we don't. It's statistical in nature.

 

[ding]

You have no idea what I like to lick.

My money is on an ice cream cone.

You mean not in a theocracy yet.

We're coming for you.

 

[alang1216]

Yes, and XX = Female and XY = Male is objectively true.

What do XXX, XXY, and XYY equal?

 

[Concerned American]

What do XXX, XXY, and XYY equal?

alang 1216 + moron

 

[alang1216]

alang 1216 + moron

Invalid equation!