President Donald Trump - J.D. Vance Administration

#42,977
#42,977
Orange_Crush said:
It is not immoral. It may be socially unacceptable in certain places. But it is not immoral. No one has ever stated that there are no social preferences. It's an odd question to ask in this discussion.

A better question is:

Would it be immoral to rape and eat babies in a society that accepts raping and eating babies?
Click to expand...
I certainly believe it would be.
If you disagree with society's moral code, it is immoral to follow it.
 
#42,978
#42,978
luthervol said:
I certainly believe it would be.
If you disagree with society's moral code, it is immoral to follow it.
Click to expand...
You make no sense. You claim that society defines morality then deny that society defines morality. You are a bundle of contradictions.

Have you ever considered that you may be one of the last people that needs to be lecturing others on what's morally "nuts"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#42,979
#42,979
Orange_Crush said:
You make no sense. You claim that society defines morality then deny that society defines morality. You are a bundle of contradictions.

Have you ever considered that you may be one of the last people that needs to be lecturing others on what's morally "nuts"?
Click to expand...
It's not my problem that you can't understand.
When and where did I deny that society defines morality?
I deny that they define it in a way that I, or anyone else, will agree with 100% of the time.
 
#42,980
#42,980
luthervol said:
It's not my problem that you can't understand.
When and where did I deny that society defines morality?
I deny that they define it in a way that I, or anyone else, will agree with 100% of the time.
Click to expand...
I actually suspect we both understand, which is why you get so vague and defensive when this conversation comes up.

You've reduced morality to a meaningless concept, while denying that you have reduced it to a meaningless concept.

It's impossible that you don't see the problems with your position. You've reduced right and wrong to individual personal opinion while continuously coming on here and giving people ****. Any time you've accepted a worldview that is impossible for you to consistently live out, you really should do the work to reconsider it.

The funny thing is that you basically defied anyone to admit that they would let a kid die in the hospital, but it's impossible for you to simply say, "Raping, murdering and eating babies is just wrong. End stop. No matter what anyone else says or thinks. It's just objectively wrong."

If you want to live consistently, stop living like there is an objective right/wrong. Morality is just a collection of personal opinions. Nothing is ACTUALLY better than anything else. Since every opinion is equally valuable, there is no reason to debate, protest, or try to change the world. Que sera sera.
 
#42,981
#42,981
Orange_Crush said:
I actually suspect we both understand, which is why you get so vague and defensive when this conversation comes up.

You've reduced morality to a meaningless concept, while denying that you have reduced it to a meaningless concept.

It's impossible that you don't see the problems with your position. You've reduced right and wrong to individual personal opinion while continuously coming on here and giving people ****. Any time you've accepted a worldview that is impossible for you to consistently live out, you really should do the work to reconsider it.

The funny thing is that you basically defied anyone to admit that they would let a kid die in the hospital, but it's impossible for you to simply say, "Raping, murdering and eating babies is just wrong. End stop. No matter what anyone else says or thinks. It's just objectively wrong."

If you want to live consistently, stop living like there is an objective right/wrong. Morality is just a collection of personal opinions. Nothing is ACTUALLY better than anything else. Since every opinion is equally valuable, there is no reason to debate, protest, or try to change the world. Que sera sera.
Click to expand...
yawn
 
#42,982
#42,982
luthervol said:
That all of the nuts on here screaming that non-citizens should receive no health care and that there is absolutely no room for compromise are just that...................nuts
Click to expand...
I offered up a compromising option right out of the gate and you immediately balked. And for the record, I might be the most conservative sane person this side of the Mississippi River.
 
#42,983
#42,983
RockyTop85 said:
Assume that’s true. What does it have to do with what I said?
Click to expand...

RockyTop85 said:
FWIW, people without insurance still abuse the ER the same way. If they can’t pay the bill, they don’t care how big the number is. The cost to collect (beyond sending a letter) is more than the hospital would ever get in most cases.

Also they’re statistically less healthy so they probably go more often.

I imagine the cost gets absorbed by the hospital and passed on to paying patients.
Click to expand...

You clearly seem to be arguing that if we provide them insurance they won’t go to the ER as often. Am I mistaken?
 
#42,985
#42,985
CobbVol said:
I offered up a compromising option right out of the gate and you immediately balked. And for the record, I might be the most conservative sane person this side of the Mississippi River.
Click to expand...
Balked? I was the one saying that was an obvious exception from the beginning.
Proof of the need for compromise.
 
#42,998
#42,998
RockyTop85 said:
Yes. I didn’t say anything about providing insurance, so what makes it clear that I’m arguing that?
Click to expand...

Healthcare for poor and immigrants was a general topic on the board at the time. You then stated the uninsured will use the ER a lot and that tax payers will have to pay for that anyway.

Seems like an argument in favor of providing insurance
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top