The war was vastly immoral. Even a cretin like you might understand that. If your argument is that Bush was so out-of-touch he didn’t know he was being manipulated by evil men, then I would argue that it was immoral for GWB, if he was self-aware enough to realize how incompetent he was, to aspire to the Presidency.
You consistently vomit invective like “tree frog” and accuse me of badmouthing you? Ha!
it is good to see the examples on the left of the blindly ideological behaving like their confreres of the right in the same thread.
If you’re a liberal, then that’s evidence to the contrary. It looks like one liberal, on a board dominated by liberals, disagrees with septimus.
I don’t agree that Bush was aware of his limitations.
And I think it’s self-evident that you’re bad-mouthing me.
Sure, sure – except that his post preceded mine, and yet it didn’t stir you to post the specific point you disagreed with in his.
And I’ll note that for a second time you haven’t disagreed: you say ‘invective’ is an odd way to indicate agreement, but in fact neither does it indicate disagreement. Invective simply means that it’s insulting, and for you to correctly call it insulting doesn’t mean you either agree or disagree with its substance.
Be honest here: you were more interested in posting your disagreement with my point than with his, right?
So let’s add up all those consequences, multiply by a thousand, and express the result in Drone Strike Equivalency units, or DSEs.
I estimate… zero.
One liberal…disagreeing with one liberal. I’m not sure how you can come to any conclusions on either part, particularly since you have no idea how many liberals are even reading this thread.
I also disagree with septimus. There’s two. If you’re willing to tar all liberals based on one hyperbolic insult, then two contrary opinions should send your opinion flying the opposite direction.
I’m not personally all that confident in Bricker’s ability to correctly identify liberals, at least in any meaningful use of the label.
Wait, what are we being accused of now? Is it anything important, like liking raisins or something?
I hate raisins.
I think the problem is somewhat easier than you frame it. I don’t think there’s a reasonable expectation of going on your tiptoes and peaking before chucking in load of trash. Meaning, you’ve practiced due diligence. Now morally speaking if you had knowledge that the kid tended to play in the dumpster, that might be different. Or if you were throwing away a desk and you knew that kids played in the area maybe. Yes there remain shades of grey, but I don’t think the problem is as knotty as you indicate.
I also disagree with septimus. Then again, I figure septimus disagrees with septimus: that’s what hyperbole involves after all. So by my reckoning liberal support for Bricker’s right to vote reaches 100%.
Should someone with Bricker’s faculties and temperament vote? That’s a separate matter. What’s your opinion Bricker? ::straight face::
Good man.
Now, that Measure for Measure chappy who posted after you obviously loves raisins or else he would have disavowed them. Let’s burn him!
Agreement… According to Jonathan Glover, in his book Causing Death and Saving Lives, noted an early epoch in the history of the Christian Church, when a “lie” could be justified as “truth” by the implementation of a secret extenuating reservation. e.g., if asked, “Did you steal money from the pension fund?” a man might answer “No,” but is thinking in his mind, “Not today, I didn’t.”
Obviously, this can allow just about any grossly false statement to become “true” in the sharpest legalistic sense. It’s a theory of truth that is frowned upon these days (although it retains its popularity with the very, very young.)
(Kid lying on walkway, with his feet inside the door. “You said not to set one foot outside today. And I didn’t!”)
These kinds of deceits don’t negate “intention.” If anything, they demonstrate it.
I was wrong, and apologize. I wrongly took “it’s not the hundredth instance for that parent” as insulting, for being obvious. I see now that wasn’t how you meant it. My bad, sorry.
(Also, of course, it’s damned foolish of me to gripe about anyone’s insulting tone…in the goddam BBQ Pit! Well, duh! That’s what we do here! Still, it’s best to try to keep the threads insulated from each other. I’ll call you beastly names in one thread…and attempt to treat honorably with you in another. Life is weird!)
Anyway, I think the issue of intent in immorality is a damn fascinating one, and I find it vaguely haunting that I mostly agree with you on it!
ETA: Have I mentioned recently how much I admire your taste in music? We should converse more often in Cafe Society.
What about religious nuts who commit immoral acts but believe they are doing God’s will?
You might say, “Denial != unaware”. Does it matter if a lot of people (the perps especially) will not accept certain kinds of religious motivation as a form of denial?
Say GOP POTUS candidate x really believes the Earth is 6000 years old, despite years of being presented with solid scientific evidence to the contrary. Candidate x is elected POTUS, acts on religious belief to ignore climate change on a policy level; world subsequently turns to shit as a result. Is that guy innocent? Does it matter that a lot of the people who are fucked in this scenario will not accept his innocence, should the legal/logical answer turn out to be solidly “yes”?
Well, yeah, that gets tricky. You might have to do some kind of deep psychoanalysis to figure out at what level they are aware of their wicked motivations.
For instance, some of the people who hunted witches in the sixteenth century really believed that witches were Satanic, and dangerous, and a threat. But some were greedy bastards grabbing up money from the people they imprisoned. And some were right in between, and might not even have been aware of their “real” motivations.
Denial can also come in the form of unawareness. Many racists are not actually aware that they are racists; for them, denial is in the form of self-deception.
I want to preserve some degree of leniency for the people who honestly don’t know they’re wicked. But it’s a sliding scale, a spectrum, and self-deceit is rarely zero per cent or one hundred per cent. It’s usually subtle enough to be hard to detect.
And…what about people who have been taught, all their lives, that certain evil things are “good.” People who are racist…because papa told them all about how bad blacks are. To some degree, they should have questioned their postulates and examined their beliefs. But that’s hard to do. It’s a human failing to continue to believe what one has always believed. Where does the “due diligence” kick in?
This is why education is so important. Once a person has been taught, officially, “No, racism is not okay,” then their “plausible deniability” is punctured. (Just as the people who have seen TV public service announcements about not leaving kids in parked cars no longer have the excuse of ignorance.)
(Amusingly, this parallels "They were exposed to the Bible, so now they are no longer ignorant pagans, and are liable to Hell for not believing.)
So… you’re saying I’m more right than Bricker? Woot! 
You sound dangerously close to proposing that we redact American Exceptionalism from our school curriculum.
Well, there’s Mark Twain’s Huck Finn. Huck honestly thought he was wicked for helping Jim escape, but he did it anyway.
Generally speaking though, in the tougher cases you need to get more granular. Some circumspection is called for before judging another age or another part of the world. That done, I am willing to make such judgments. Meaning you can look at the spectrum of opinions that people were exposed to, laud those whose choices tended to reduce suffering and hold the bastards in contempt. Calibrate your informed judgment as applicable, withholding it as appropriate.
I wouldn’t touch a straight line like that for a free weekend in Pismo Beach.
Not only yeah, but hell yeah!
This is one of those things where there were two different (and incompatible) “right things to do.” He was wicked for helping Jim escape…but he would have been wickeder not to.
This is the sort of thing that leads to fun moral paradoxes, and Utility Monsters, and other ugly problems. (“Do you push the one guy in front of the moving train, if that’s the only way to save ten other people?”)
I think…I don’t fully understand what you’re saying here. But, yeah: “I am willing to make such judgments.” Agreed. We pretty much have to. And, yeah, “Calibrate your informed judgment as applicable.” We try to do the best we can, knowing we’ll screw up now and then. But “not acting” is also a form of acting.
Yes, I disagree with septimus’ excessive invective in this thread. 
And I don’t fully consider myself a liberal (though I’m sure I’m so classified in post-rational America). From my posts in GD I think I present as a relatively sober, rational-thinking left-of-center moderate.
But sanctimonious right-wingers irritate me greatly. And (yes, I know this makes me very very childish) when I’m treated to insults or contempt I tend to reciprocate ten-fold. IMO, Bricker started it, treating me with disrespect first.
I’d be willing to offer each other mutual apologies, and start afresh … though I’m afraid Bricker would remain a sanctimonious right-winger.