Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
That's not a dictionary definition, (and the second one you cited from the dictionary is circular and therefore kinda useless,) but it's the role that morality fills. That's why, regardless of which religion you look at, moral prescriptions and proscriptions tend to focus almost exclusively on subjects that have non-obvious long-term consequences: because that's what morality is for.
Those sound very personal and subjective to me.
Personal beliefs are personal and subjective, but "the degree to which something is right and good" is most definitely not. That's where we start to get into "you're entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts" territory.
Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
that still does not give me the right to determine the morals of other people
Do you even know what "morality" is? Because anyone who holds to the idea that it's something that a person should determine their own version of is completely missing the point. Morality is the aggregate lab notes of human experience regarding issues of long-term causality. By definition, if you're creating your own you're doing it wrong, because you haven't lived long enough to have personal experience with the long-term effects of the causes covered by moral codes. (Yes, I'm making a few assumptions about your age here. Unless you're old enough to remember WWI, they're almost certainly correct.)
Why do you think you can or should dictate what other people choose to put into their own bodies?
No man is an island, that's why. If all it affected was "their own bodies," that would be one thing, but that's not even remotely true and you know it from personal experience, don't you? So please don't trot out a disingenuous line like that. We are talking about something that has been directly responsible for more death, misery, and poverty than every war in the history of mankind put together. Knowing that, how could any reasonable person say it's not inherently immoral?
Re: Re: Re: Not as basic concept as you would think
I didn't say "guns have no other use than for hurting other people"; I said they have no other use than as a weapon. You ever hear of someone hunting without a weapon? Me neither.
The interesting thing about that particular strawman, though, is how easily it falls apart under scrutiny. If you look at weapons made for hunting animals, and weapons made for murdering people, they tend to be very different creatures, particularly with regard to size. A hunting rifle (or shotgun) needs to be accurate at a long range, which requires a long barrel for stability. If you saw someone out hunting for deer with a pistol, or an assault rifle, you'd think it looks very strange, wouldn't you?
But when your goal is to kill people... well, people tend to live and interact with each other in close quarters, and they don't spook when they see a human being approaching the way game animals do, so you don't need long-range accuracy. People do, however, tend to spook when they see a human being approaching with a gun, which is why killing-people guns very rarely have long barrels: making them smaller makes them easier to conceal until the moment of truth arrives. (With the notable exception of sniper rifles, whose entire use case revolves around staying hidden anyway.)
It's almost as if hunting-tools and murdering-tools were two completely distinct classes of guns, no?
The anti-gunners have been dying to go after gun manufacturers for decades. MADD would love nothing more than to go after the beer/wine/liquor mfgs. We have a long, disgraceful history of going after 3rd parties for the actions of an individual.
Guns have no other use than as a weapon. Booze has no other use than to make someone intoxicated. (Once upon a time it had medicinal uses as an antiseptic or an anesthetic. These days, we have actual antiseptics and anesthetics for that, and no one uses liquor for it anymore.) When you're creating and selling a product that has no other use than something immoral and harmful, there's a huge difference between that and creating a platform that enables speech, which has plenty of potential uses that are moral and helpful.
I really do hate that kind of cop out. What it does is to paint morality as some kind of subjective thing that cannot be quantified, discussed logically, or expressed in any kind of scientific terminology, which I think is laughably false.
Wow. When did you suddenly start making so much sense? o_0
Having said that, ironically enough I find that "good" is somewhat tricky to define in an objective, definitive sense, but "evil" is dead easy: any act whereby a person places their own interests above the well-being of others to such a degree that they are willing to knowingly cause harm to others in order to achieve their goal is an evil act. Defining "good", though... what's the objective opposite of "cause harm to others"? It's not simple.
"From an economic perspective, open ecosystems--open innovation--always trumps a controlled ecosystem." And that's what the manufacturers are afraid of. If everyone benefits, there may be more total benefit going around, but their own share of it is a lot smaller. As has been noted before, the people who hate free markets the most are the businesspeople who have to compete in them!
Utah -- a state that overhauled its forfeiture system 15 years ago -- rolled those reforms back just as national scrutiny was increasing.
I'm not surprised. You'd think a bunch of conservative Mormons would have a lot of respect for the idea of "Thou Shalt Not Steal," but they've got some real problems when the person doing the stealing has any sort of legal cover.
For example, my brother lives in Provo, Utah, and apparently over there it's perfectly legal to steal a car, if you run a towing service. If you call the police and report your car stolen, the first thing they'll do is ask where it was parked, and if there's any chance it may have been towed, before opening an investigation they'll tell you to call the towing services and see if they have your car. If they do, whatever happened is presumed to have been completely legitimate and you're screwed; even if you didn't actually park illegally, you have to pay whatever extortion they demand to get your vehicle back and the cops won't do a thing about it. ISTM that's barely discernible from straight-up Grand Theft Auto, but apparently they think there's an important difference there.
Based upon a pattern I've explained multiple times on here before, that goes back decades.
Remember Bush Sr.? Remember "read my lips, no new taxes?" And then there were new taxes, and a sucky economy, and people got sick of him and threw him out.
They picked a new guy who was kind of the anti-Bush: (relatively) young, charming, with an informal air about him. Problem is, he turned out to be thoroughly corrupt and oh-by-the-way also a sexual predator, and the country had to sit through years of scandal upon scandal upon scandal. (Everyone remembers Monica Lewinsky; do you remember the rest of them? I do.) The Clinton presidency was worse than the Bush presidency, and after 8 years of Clinton screwing around, people were fed up... so we got sick of him and threw him out.
Of course, it seems utterly bizarre now, but do you remember what Bush Jr.'s campaign platform was, the first time around? "I will restore dignity to the White House." It was sorely needed, and he did a great job of portraying himself as the anti-Clinton, so we elected him. And we all remember how that went: he was utterly incompetent and in way over his head, especially after 9/11, and the Bush Jr. presidency turned out to be worse than the Clinton presidency. After 8 years of him screwing things up, we got sick of it and threw him out.
Well, you can guess what happened next, right? Yup: we elected the guy who managed to portray himself as the Anti-Bush. Hope and Change and all that. Well, things have changed since then, but it's been mostly more of the same changes we were getting through the Bush years: changes for the worse. The Obama administration has been even worse than the Bush Jr. administration, and after 8 years of him screwing things up... it's not hard to guess what's going to happen in the next election.
The next President is going to be whichever Republican candidate most successfully portrays himself as the Anti-Obama. (And he or she will most likely end up being even worse than Obama... somehow.) You can say no, that's not going to happen, but consider this: for a significant percentage of today's voters, that's the only pattern they've ever known. And the ones older than that are... well... older, and statistically speaking older demographics are more likely to vote Republican.
I don't like it, but I believe that it's going to happen. Just watch and see.
I haven't seen that one, but I did see Clinton Cash, and if any of the stories in that one are true, Bill and Hillary both belong behind bars (for straight-up treason, in a few cases!) and not out on the campaign trail.
If they had any sense, net neutrality opponents should be happy about this, as it's abundantly clear the FCC's only looking to enforce the most ham-fisted of neutrality abuses (filtering, blocking, heavy throttling of competing services), and ISPs can continue doing precisely what they're doing now (aggressively cashing in on uncompetitive markets) with no worry of regulatory interference. Most ISPs understand the message is subtle but it's there: ISPs can continue to experiment with this kind of "creative" pricing, they just need to be subtle about it. There's zero indication that Wheeler has any interest in serious rate regulation.
It's because you're seeing a different subtle message than they're seeing.
The "problem" is that the FCC is daring to do its job at all, rather than simply continue to let telecoms run roughshod all over our rights.
It's that we have major presidential candidates talking about breaking up "too big to fail" banks, putting that idea into the national discourse and getting serious people to take it seriously.
It's that the EPA is daring, for the first time ever, to do something about power plants dumping unlimited amounts of pollution into our atmosphere.
The subtle message is that the second Gilded Age is slowly but surely coming to an end. The writing is on the wall, and it's got the parasites terrified. And so like any cornered animal, they're fighting viciously to try and do all they can to escape what they've got coming.
Personally, I expect things to continue to get worse, at home and throughout the world, for about 5 more years before they start getting better.
I want you to name any candidate from either side that is not a joke?
I've been watching both sides pretty closely, and it appears that we have two this time around: Hillary Clinton, (who by all rights ought to be a joke but unfortunately she's deadly serious, with emphasis on the "deadly",) and Bernie Sanders (who's running on fixing a lot of problems not only in American politics but in the campaign process itself, and actually having a noteworthy amount of success. Which hasn't stopped the segments of the mainstream media who want the next election to be a coronation for Hillary from doing their best to pretend he doesn't exist, unfortunately.)
On the Republican side, no non-joke candidates that I can see this time. And that's unfortunate, especially since whichever Republican candidate wins the primary is very likely to become the next President.