Presidential Election: 2012

[Dapper]

There is nothing immoral about not helping anybody else.

Right, that is amoral.

 

[Keef]

Amoralism is a disease - a disease of the mind, hampering one's ability to think.

Must I bring up the trolley problem? Okay, I will.

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

The only moral answer to this problem is to do nothing. If you let the trolley go, five people get killed, and obviously that is just no good. But if you flip the switch you are sacrificing one to save many more - you have violated that person's right to life, which is immoral and thus not a correct decision.

While it's sad that five people will die in this situation, luckily you took no direct part in their deaths and you are still within your moral boundaries.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

What about atheist? Or people with young boys?

Rely on a capitalist?

What if he doesn't?

From a Republican pov, shouldn't keeping the workers that create capital healthy be a big priority so capital keeps being gained? The government provides roads so things get done, and lawyers so innocent people stay out of jail, how is being healthy any different?

Then there are groups that do that...I'm not disagreeing with you but the way Wolf Blitzer gave the question it is wrong of a person to be negligent with their own health and then do a 180 expecting help from the Government especially when said person could have paid for the health care and still made it. Now if it is a person that has no ability to do that, the cards dealt to them by life haven't been the best and they're trying to make it but can't provide healthcare for themselves by any means, then yes the government should step in. Especially during economic crisis, but to think that there are no hospitals out there that provide help to people without healthcare...that is wrong cause there are. I think a certain group of people deserve healthcare. Disabled adults and kids, kids growing up in poor to middle class households. Something I've already said but you obviously missed in my prior post, if you're not going to pay attention to what sides we weigh on then trying to debate us with your blinders is going to counter productive to all of us. Oh and just to clear something up for you, I'm not a republican the thought of be one or a democrat makes my stomach hurt quite bad, I'm a middle of the road guy that uses rational ideas from all around to make a call. I think both parties need help and especially people who think their party has all the answers.

Another issue I would pose to the group is this...

The media has shifted blame toward Rep. House for the past several months and say they're to blame. They also blame the 8 Bush years as well. Now I've done my Homework and from 2007 to 2010 there was a Democratic House and Senate in charge yet they never get blame any more...why? Also the Democratic Party is still in control at the Senate, but I can't argue on this too much because if nothing comes through for them to vote upon, but when it does...they do the same thing the house has just the other party.

 

[ALP1986]

Amoralism is a disease - a disease of the mind, hampering one's ability to think.

Must I bring up the trolley problem? Okay, I will.



The only moral answer to this problem is to do nothing. If you let the trolley go, five people get killed, and obviously that is just no good. But if you flip the switch you are sacrificing one to save many more - you have violated that person's right to life, which is immoral and thus not a correct decision.

While it's sad that five people will die in this situation, luckily you took no direct part in their deaths and you are still within your moral boundaries.

I know this is off topic but you've completely misunderstood the trolley problem; or in more reflexive terms your coming at it from a very different perspective. If you consider Foot's and others arguments in regard to participating via your presence the only moral answer is to act; and to do nothing is the immoral choice.

 

[Danoff]

I know this is off topic but you've completely misunderstood the trolley problem; or in more reflexive terms your coming at it from a very different perspective. If you consider Foot's and others arguments in regard to participating via your presence the only moral answer is to act; and to do nothing is the immoral choice.

It is a distilled version of the following thought experiment.

A terrorist tells you he will blow up a building with 5 people in it unless you shoot the person he tells you to (in which case you know for certain he will free them). Do you shoot?

Change your answer? Fundamentally it is the same question.

 

[Omnis]

I know this is off topic but you've completely misunderstood the trolley problem; or in more reflexive terms your coming at it from a very different perspective. If you consider Foot's and others arguments in regard to participating via your presence the only moral answer is to act; and to do nothing is the immoral choice.

The Joker loves people that play his games.

 

[ALP1986]

It is a distilled version of the following thought experiment.

A terrorist tells you he will blow up a building with 5 people in it unless you shoot the person he tells you to (in which case you know for certain he will free them). Do you shoot?

Change your answer? Fundamentally it is the same question.

Actually that example is very different and if anything is more akin to the 'fat man' variant than Foot's original. Calling them the same question acts to somewhat over simplify the differences between the two.

 

[Keef]

I know this is off topic but you've completely misunderstood the trolley problem; or in more reflexive terms your coming at it from a very different perspective. If you consider Foot's and others arguments in regard to participating via your presence the only moral answer is to act; and to do nothing is the immoral choice.

You've got in completely backwards, actually. By acting (keep it within the box please because some people refuse to think inside this particular box) you play God by choosing who dies. Utilitarianism is not necessarily something I would advocate.

So I ask again, are you immoral? Do you have the right to decide who else lives or dies? The right to life is the most basic inalienable right of all, as all others are based off it.

 

[Danoff]

Actually that example is very different and if anything is more akin to the 'fat man' variant than Foot's original. Calling them the same question acts to somewhat over simplify the differences between the two.

Please point out to me the fundamental philosophical difference between the two examples.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

...I hope this leads to some political understanding in the end, instead of who is the better internet philosopher.

 

[Keef]

These things take time, but eventually everybody comes around when they all go bankrupt and the Chinese invade.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

These things take time, but eventually everybody comes around when they all go bankrupt and the Chinese invade.

Supposedly Chinese prices are going up and may bring work back home...which I doubt. However, once you get a taste of the capitalist pig, you'll want the entire feast.

 

[arora]

...I hope this leads to some political understanding in the end, instead of who is the better internet philosopher.

Surely,

Paul would do nothing, Perry would invade a few contries, and Obama would over tax the one to support the five's families.

Better?

 

[Danoff]

...I hope this leads to some political understanding in the end, instead of who is the better internet philosopher.

I think the fact that you're already checked out means you'll be disappointed.

 

[JLawrence]

Disregarding the philosophy here (though I did enjoy reading through it), my opinion on the election is that at this point probably the best ticket is Perry/Cain, though I believe that if Ron Paul had a stronger personality in terms of dealing with foreign personalities he would be the best, bar none.

I dunno that this country can handle another four years of Obama.

 

[Dotini]

Surely,

Paul would do nothing, Perry would invade a few contries, and Obama would over tax the one to support the five's families.

Better?

Well, if Perry's America invades a few countries, I hope he avoids tough, impoverished, distant places like Afghanistan, and makes quick, profitable invasions of rich, lightly defended places like Canada, Bahamas, Costa Rica and Isle of Man. Merely winning, instead of losing, a few quick wars will restore America to the position of greatness and respect it so richly deserves.

 

[ALP1986]

You've got in completely backwards, actually. By acting (keep it within the box please because some people refuse to think inside this particular box) you play God by choosing who dies. Utilitarianism is not necessarily something I would advocate.

So I ask again, are you immoral? Do you have the right to decide who else lives or dies? The right to life is the most basic inalienable right of all, as all others are based off it.

Dealing with your second paragraph first you appear to be confusing me with someone else. Considering this is your first reply to me on this issue you are not asking me about my morality, or lack there of, a second time. Please be sure to check the names of those posting in future, or you'll repeat silly mistakes.

Judging by the remarkable simplicity of your overall arguments, I would hazard to guess that you haven't read very much about this kind of thing. If this were untrue I very much doubt that you'd claim that I have it 'backwards' by citing one of the main schools of thought which surround Foot's version of the problem, and its subsequent variants. I'm happy to discuss such things with you, but I would require you to move beyond a key stage 3 philosophical understanding of the issues beforehand. If not I can't help but feel that a pursuit of our discourse yet further would be both a waste of my time and beyond your comprehension.

Please point out to me the fundamental philosophical difference between the two examples.

To me, and this is naturally debatable, its unfair in two respects. First the terrorist example relays on the actions of a concious entity to enact the killing where as the trolley is governed by physics. I would argue that significantly alters how our minds (as the empowered party) would engage with the problem. By enforcing an artificial certainty in our faith of the terrorists actions also removes a sense of reality. Second, and why I equate it more with the 'fat man' variant, is that terrorist example places a person in danger which was uninvolved before we (as the individual again) are posed the question. Ego research has shown (possibly by Judith Thomson, or someone like that, if i remember right) that such a difference is likely to provoke a different response.

 

[Danoff]

To me, and this is naturally debatable, its unfair in two respects. First the terrorist example relays on the actions of a concious entity to enact the killing where as the trolley is governed by physics. I would argue that significantly alters how our minds (as the empowered party) would engage with the problem. By enforcing an artificial certainty in our faith of the terrorists actions also removes a sense of reality. Second, and why I equate it more with the 'fat man' variant, is that terrorist example places a person in danger which was uninvolved before we (as the individual again) are posed the question. Ego research has shown (possibly by Judith Thomson, or someone like that, if i remember right) that such a difference is likely to provoke a different response.

The guy on the other track was also not involved. The rest of this seems to boil down to the notion that you don't find the situation as convincing, this is why I asked about the fundamental philosophical difference rather than asking about superficial differences.

 

[FoolKiller]

Does Dr.Paul really say a guy in a coma should do whatever he wants to do?

No, he says that he should do what he wants to do before he is in a coma and then have to accept the responsibility of his actions. Of course, no one is ever allowed to die when they enter into a hospital. It is just that after they are better they will have to pay for hospital bills.

I know you are intelligent enough to know better than what you are accusing him of and I see that your intellectual dishonesty here is nothing more than slinging mud and hoping something sticks. If you truly don't understand what Dr. Paul is saying then I suggest you stick to subjects you do understand because you sound like someone who has never dealt with the medical establishment.

But I will attempt to discuss the issue with you below.

I know a pastor that drives a Bentley, and I saw his son's totaled Viper on the back of a flatbed(true story).

And what church does he work for? Links would be awesome. Considering that when I was growing up my pastor was given a place to live and paid $24,000.

So, we are left with letting the guy in a coma to "do whatever he wants." Unless the guy in a coma can do a fund raiser or pry money from a capitalist cold hands, he is going to rely on the government... or what Dr.Paul seemingly prefers, let his irresponsible 🤬 die!

Dr.Paul, pro poor/old/irresponsible genocide. 👍

Let's get some real-world examples, shall we? I need a heart transplant. I can guarantee you that I will rack up in the range of a million dollars in medical bills (surgery, follow-ups, medicines, etc.) sometime in the near future. I am also currently unemployed. I have yet to draw an unemployment check or file for disability. Yet, I have not gone a single day without health insurance coverage of some form.

Now, let's say that I was employed and despite my medical conditions chose to not have insurance. I know what is coming, I know what will happen. I choose to not be sure that I can pay for it. Now, who should pay for my transplant? Should the burden of my irresponsibility be on the tax payers?

Now let's compare the two. When I have coverage I am responsible for everything. I have to pay monthly to keep my insurance, I have top pay copays, I have to pay deductibles, and so forth. But if I am not insured I can draw aid from the government to cover my costs. You will be helping to pay for my medical bills.

Now, this seems very odd to me. If I am responsible I am punished by being asked to pay for various odds and ends. But if I am irresponsible then people like you pretend to be compassionate and demand someone else pays for me. Why the hell should I have insurance when you ask for me to be rewarded for being an idiot? Why should anyone be responsible for anything? I mean the government should take care of us whenever we need it, right? Anything less would be genocide against the irresponsible.

From a Republican pov, shouldn't keeping the workers that create capital healthy be a big priority so capital keeps being gained? The government provides roads so things get done, and lawyers so innocent people stay out of jail, how is being healthy any different?

It would also be ideal to keep them fed, clothed, and sheltered. I guess we should pay for everyone's food, clothes, and homes as well? I mean, those are even more important to a healthy working force than healthcare.

I know you will duck out answering this, as is the case with anyone defending government healthcare programs when challenged with taking care of base necessities first. But isn't that why people like you voted for Obama? So why don't you argue for those programs?

 

[Dapper]

First the Rapperesque pastor, or whatever his title was, lives in Moore, Oklahoma. My sister lives there and we passed the church, which was the size of our local mall, and while I didn't see the Bentley, I did see his son's Viper that was crumbled up on the back of a flatbed. And this was about 9 to 10 years ago, in the earlier part 2002.

About clothing being equal to healthcare... What a silly thought. $200 at Goodwill or Gabriel brothers will go a really long way in terms of clothing, but $200 may cover an initial consult with some doctors. Food is already covered under one of America's favorite socialist programs, foodstamps! And the government has income based housing already, also.

Intellectual dishonesty... On the Internet?! That is unheard of. But in my case this is not the case. My opinion has been formed because of such pathetic foresight of almost every republican that's lead to a large portion of the American society(an extremely important word) needs help from others. And I see no problem in helping them because of what the slimy capitalist republicans did.

 

[Keef]

About clothing being equal to healthcare... What a silly thought. $200 at Goodwill or Gabriel brothers will go a really long way in terms of clothing, but $200 may cover an initial consult with some doctors.

Are you of the opinion that clean, warm clothing is more important to a person's health than a sample of Nasonex?

 

[ALP1986]

The guy on the other track was also not involved. The rest of this seems to boil down to the notion that you don't find the situation as convincing, this is why I asked about the fundamental philosophical difference rather than asking about superficial differences.

In the original example the single man is largely seen to have been involved before the introduction of the bystander, this is not true of the terrorist example as it requires the additional presence to force the bystanders inclusion; hence your example is far closer to later variants (worth reading up on). On the latter point, the difference between a trolley and a person is far more than a superficial difference; if anything it is that key difference which influenced the very nature of the example. By replacing an irresistible force with a highly influenceable person you fundamentally change the example in almost all respects.

 

[arora]

a few quick wars will restore America to the position of greatness and respect it so richly deserves.

The reward needs to be greater than the expence?

Seriously though, do any of them have forign relation skills? This Palestine deal might effect the race.

 

[FoolKiller]

First the Rapperesque pastor, or whatever his title was, lives in Moore, Oklahoma. My sister lives there and we passed the church, which was the size of our local mall, and while I didn't see the Bentley, I did see his son's Viper that was crumbled up on the back of a flatbed. And this was about 9 to 10 years ago, in the earlier part 2002.

And that was all I needed. With five minutes of Google I know that you are talking about First Baptist Church of Moore, OK. Their pastor is Kevin Clarkson, who has multiple jobs. According to his professional profile he serves on multiple boards, served as chairman of the board for Oklahoma Baptist University, and also instructs a class. The man is not sitting on his laurels and has likely earned every penny that Bentley he drives (supposedly) cost him. Of course, I never found any comments on his extravagant lifestyle or that of his son, which seems odd as I would think even halfway legitimate rumors of something like that would be Internet fodder.
http://www.fbcmoore.org/
http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=34512528&targetid=profile

About clothing being equal to healthcare... What a silly thought. $200 at Goodwill or Gabriel brothers will go a really long way in terms of clothing, but $200 may cover an initial consult with some doctors. Food is already covered under one of America's favorite socialist programs, foodstamps! And the government has income based housing already, also.

But those are for poor people. You know, the ones that can't help it. The example was a guy with a good job who just chose to not be covered. We are talking about someone who would get none of the programs you just mentioned (I recognize Goodwill is a charity..oh wait...and not a program, but this gentleman in question could be assumed to be like everyone in his situation and not shop at Goodwill, unless he's a hipster, but then if a hipster dies and nobody cares does it matter?).

Intellectual dishonesty... On the Internet?! That is unheard of. But in my case this is not the case. My opinion has been formed because of such pathetic foresight of almost every republican that's lead to a large portion of the American society(an extremely important word) needs help from others. And I see no problem in helping them because of what the slimy capitalist republicans did.

There goes your single-minded, blame whatever named group I can find mentality again. You act like you don't realize that Democrats were in control of most branches of government for the majority of the last 60 years.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Here is my question to you, if Republicans and their capitalist ways are the problem then explain why a bank bailout was done under the Democratically controlled Congress, why the then Senator and now President Democrat Obama voted for it. Explain how the stimulus package pushed through by a Democratic president and Congress had all sorts of backroom deals to businesses which had ties to the Democrat President Obama. Or explain how it is that the head of GE, who found a way to not pay billions in corporate taxes, and in fact received billion in tax benefits, and king of outsourcing, has been appointed to head the Democrat President Obama's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness after using a program that a Democrat controlled Congress, and voted on by then Democrat Senator Obama, and supported by now Democrat President Obama, to shut down factories in the US and send all the jobs overseas.

Drop the party rhetoric. Democrats and Republicans are both rotten pieces of dog poo that has dried to a white crustiness, got eaten by another dog, and puked back up. Plain and simple, there is nothing you can say about Republicans that isn't also true about Democrats.

I don't see how people fail to see that, but people cheer on their party of choice with more ignorant blindness than sports fans. "YAY! GO CORRUPTION, CHEATING, AND LIES! GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO TEAM!"

 

[Dotini]

The reward needs to be greater than the expence?

Seriously though, do any of them have forign relation skills? This Palestine deal might effect the race.

Perry is aligned with the dispensational wing of the Christian fundies. You can almost bet on Armageddon if he and his buddies are elected. But not to worry - we always get exactly what we have coming.


http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/09/20/perrys-faith-based-foreign-policy-directive/

 

[Keef]

An RX7 buddy of mine, Eamon Queeney, was down in Cincy today for Obama's speech on the Brent Spence Bridge.

 

[FoolKiller]

An RX7 buddy of mine, Eamon Queeney, was down in Cincy today for Obama's speech on the Brent Spence Bridge.

Had to bring it up, didn't you?

<Deep Breath> This right here is a perfect example that this president is not paying attention to what is actually going on. He is throwing money to what sounds good while ignoring the real issues.

Allow me to explain. President Obama is giving a speech about funding upgrades/repairs to a bridge, via his jobs plan, that is still deemed safe enough to carry the traffic of two interstates. Yet, 100 miles down the river there is a bridge that was shut down two weeks ago due to safety concerns. Why are we directing funding and jobs to the Brent Spence Bridge when the Sherman Minton Bridge was shutdown for fear of it collapsing? I get it that our infrastructure needs to be upgraded or repaired in many places, but how about we address the most severe cases first? For anyone wishing to cross the river during rush hour now it is a three hour drive.

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...dge-closed-indefinitely-due-structural-cracks

I actually have a theory as to why he chose to give a speech in front of a bridge and interstate section that has been having work down on it since I can remember. Seriously, every time I go across that bridge there is road construction somewhere. He can stand in front of construction and talk about how those jobs are because of his plan. Nationally no one is aware that those guys have been working before Obama was in office.

Now, if he gave that speech in front of a closed bridge his whole speech might as well be, "I dun goofed." God forbid he admit his stimulus plan was a failure as it did little to actually help our infrastructure and instead just siphoned money to special interests. Had it been doing what he claimed it would that bridge would have been fixed years ago under operational conditions and not put under emergency shutdown due to immediate catastrophic safety issues.


Simple fact is that he is claiming responsibility for jobs on projects that have been going on for years while not even addressing a major safety failure just up the road. But then no evil capitalist is in charge of interstate bridges, so those safety failures are ignored while safety failures, and the accidental deaths that accompany them, of private companies are used for political gain.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

First the Rapperesque pastor, or whatever his title was, lives in Moore, Oklahoma. My sister lives there and we passed the church, which was the size of our local mall, and while I didn't see the Bentley, I did see his son's Viper that was crumbled up on the back of a flatbed. And this was about 9 to 10 years ago, in the earlier part 2002.

About clothing being equal to healthcare... What a silly thought. $200 at Goodwill or Gabriel brothers will go a really long way in terms of clothing, but $200 may cover an initial consult with some doctors. Food is already covered under one of America's favorite socialist programs, foodstamps! And the government has income based housing already, also.

Intellectual dishonesty... On the Internet?! That is unheard of. But in my case this is not the case. My opinion has been formed because of such pathetic foresight of almost every republican that's lead to a large portion of the American society(an extremely important word) needs help from others. And I see no problem in helping them because of what the slimy capitalist republicans did.

Once again...did you forget the context of the question...open your eyes read post more than once and understand. Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul about a man with a good living and that has a job and is well off, but decided that he doesn't need healthcare. In what world would I as a taxpayer need to be responsible for someones irresponsibility, why should we encourage people to not take up action for the benefit of themselves. I mean if you want to pay for a man that is well off and employed but thinks he is still a college kid that cant be touched, by all means go ahead and fork over more money. However, the rest of us that have families and know the responsibility no matter the age would be quite angered by a system that rewards not doing your part. It's like going to work and having work for two, but instead of your co-worker doing their part you do it all and yet the co-worker still gets paid with benefits for doing nothing that day, as well as keeping their job. So they get rewarded for not contributing like their asked? So we do the same thing in society? People have freedom but what they choose to do with it is not something that the rest of the free living have to clean up when it doesn't work for that one person. Now if this question has been asked a different way I'd think otherwise, but don't you think the problem with America right now is that a majority of people even the super rich have this idea that they are entitled to whatever they want and the gov't should give them whatever they want...this selfish way of thinking is what seems to hurt our country we want everything now but don't have the means to pay for it...while the super rich want everything and can pay for it but don't want to and rather have all the breaks so in the long run their percentage is lower and they retain more money. Like GE and Obama

 

[livemusic]

Did you guys check the GOP debate on FOX last night? I didn't know Gary Johnson, seems like he would be a good VP for Ron Paul.

 

[ChaosStar79]

Did you guys check the GOP debate on FOX last night? I didn't know Gary Johnson, seems like he would be a good VP for Ron Paul.

Agreed! I can think of no better combination for the bettering of America.

Edit: Johnson's record is quite impressive as well. He has been excluded from pretty much everything else, but he always looks good when they actually allow him to be heard.

Had to bring it up, didn't you? .....

👍👍 Well said. Sometimes I wonder if the construction in this area is just a game to them or what? I'm pretty sure they are just a static feature put there to annoy everyone, but surely the constant repair of crap roads has nothing to do with anything Barry ever said or did, unless you can make a connection between his complete failure as a leader to the lack of jobs outside of the road work business. Pretty sure that tie exists.