I've noticed something interesting in Dan's strategery recently. Once while he was trying to argue that motor vehicles were an immoral blight on society, as well as in his attcks on Trump. I'm not sure what to call this but it's him listing as many negative things as he can think of in order to demonize something, while failing to acknowledge that there might be some positive things that would offset the negative.
For example, in his screed about the evils of motor vehicles, he ignores a few things.
Our entire modern economy, the ready availability of reasonably priced goods and services, the freedom to move from place to place, emergency response (police,fire, EMT), is significantly connected to motor vehicles. So if we eliminated motor vehicles (with internal combustion engines) we would still be able to transport goods between major cities via steam trains (maybe as they still pollute), and then rely on some other transport from there. Or, say you wanted to hire a painter. You'd only be limited to painters within a very small geographic area as it'd be stupid to ride for hours to paint for 8. How many people's lives have been saved due to things like ambulances and medevac helicopters?
Do motor vehicles have some negatives, sure. Have some of those negatives been mitigated or minimized over time, absolutely.
If given the choice between our 21st century economic, technological, and freedom to travel and eliminating motor vehicles which would most of us choose?
Sure, you could argue for some form of allowing certain motor vehicles, but at that point who gets to decide what motor vehicles are acceptable, and which aren't? Do you really think that the elites will somehow manage to retain their access to motor vehicles, while restricting the rest?
On a global scale, let's consider countries that depend on tourism for the bulk of their economies. For example, the islands in the Caribbean. If we eliminate or limit motor vehicles, (especially planes and ships) the economies of those islands would suffer, as would the people who live there.
Likewise with Trump.
Has Trump done plenty of bad things in his life, absolutely. Is it fair to define Trumps entirely by making a list of the worst things he's ever done?
First, Trump employs hundreds/thousands of people directly and significantly more indirectly it seems like employing people is good for those employed as well as good for society at large.
I've seen multiple examples of Trump being lauded and awarded by "black leaders" for the work he did to make the lives of the minority communities in NY.
Come to think of it, I've seen plenty of laudatory press about Trump playing a pivotal role in the turnaround of NYC in the 70s and 80's.
We regularly hear of Trump's individual acts of charity and compassion from those he's helped.
While in office his efforts to fund HCBU's, reform the justice system, improve minority employment numbers, and other things should be considered as positives, shouldn't they?
So, do we really define anything by focusing on the perceived worst attributes and ignoring any positive attributes?
The point of this is not to suggest that motor vehicles are absolutely perfect or that we should not seek technological advances that cold further reduce some of the negatives, nor is it to lionize Trump. It's simply suggesting that we balance the bad with the good before passing judgement on things or people.
14 comments:
With Trump, the wise narrow it down to how his many good works profit us as nation (speaking of his presidency here mostly) versus which of his allegedly evil deeds have mattered? If one could find a man who's done all the good things Trump has done, without all the bad things, or even without whatever one might consider the worst things, of course most people would choose that alternative...were there such a person now running. There isn't. There's only Trump with a track record which is not in any way surpassed by anything Joe Biden's ever done, or Barack Obama, or Kamala Harris or pretty much any other Dem possibility has done. That's just the reality and I don't know how one serves God or the nation by preventing him from being elected, only to again suffer another four to eight years of what we've had during either Biden's or Obama's failed presidencies.
What we need for America politically, Trump has provided well and most likely will again, but with hopeful less interference from the nitwits of both parties (the Dems comprised of mostly nitwits). What America needs spiritually or morally is on us as individuals. I certainly prefer presidents who can model morality, but even with the best of such, it's still OUR job. A president's job is to focus on defending the Constitution of the United States and to uphold our laws and to promote ideas which result in our safety and prosperity. Trump was doing that, Biden was not, and I doubt Harris has the slightest clue as to how to do better or if her handlers do. Trump's negatives do not mitigate this reality. I owe my grandchildren better than what the likes of the Democrat party are capable of providing, and Trump has proven he understands what America needs.
Trump the man? Yeah. Not the most moral. I've known and befriended worse throughout my life. But their immorality didn't get my approval, either and they were otherwise good people. And like Trump, they didn't advocate for their personal immorality or promote it in anyway.
I am more than glad to discuss the problems, the difficulties - and the benefits - of improving our moral reasoning.
The gas-powered motor vehicle brings obvious advantages, as you have noted. I've never said otherwise and I've been quite clear that of course, there are advantages of having faster ways of moving from here to there. As you note (and as I have often noted), there are clear moral (from being helpful point of view) advantages, for instance, of having fast moving ambulances, police cars and fire engines.
Of course. Never said otherwise and have noted the same thing multiple times over the years.
Thus, I've never said or suggested that motor vehicles are an all-bad option.
With me so far?
What I HAVE noted is that having the personal auto as the main source of transportation DOES have problems, including moral problems (from a harm to humanity point of view). And this is especially true of gas-powered vehicles, which in addition to the danger of being hit and killed by one, and in addition to the problems of traffic and sprawl, have pollution-related problems.
As an objective, measurable fact, the policy of personal autos has negative human impacts. Tens of thousands of people are dying through no fault of their own, but through the impact of our policies about transportation. If we add pollution to the context, we're talking about millions of lives taken or harmed. Additionally, the reality is that all of this especially/disproportionately causes harm to the poor.
Policies that cause harm to innocent people ARE a moral concern, at least for me. Is that true for you, as well?
So, cars bring obvious benefits - even moral benefits - and obvious harms, which I think are obviously moral questions/concerns. Do you not?
The question is not: Given the possibility of motor transport, should we allow it or not? The question for me and other moral philosophers is: What are the most moral and health-beneficial parameters can we place around motor vehicles?
Can you see from a specifically evidence-based, reason-based moral approach, that this is a reasonable concern and set of questions?
Or, are you of the mind that it doesn't matter if people are harmed as a side-effect of cars, it's not a moral question?
As to Trump, I have no doubt that he must have done some good, kind things in his life. As I've said repeatedly, he is a man who by all appearances appears to be quite damaged emotionally from an emotionally abusive childhood and the way he was raised. As I've said repeatedly, I can have sympathy for the emotionally unhealthy man, Trump, just as I do for people I and my community have worked with over the years... Homeless or mentally ill folks who continually make bad choices that harm others.
Emotionally-unhealthy people quite often cause harm to others not so much as a matter of intent, but due to the damage to their psyche. That is worthy of concern and human compassion.
I have compassion for Trump, the man, the individual. He's not well.
But I'm certain that you agree that there ARE lines that should not be crossed. For instance, if you knew someone was a rapist, you would not vote for them for ANY office, would you? (I'm asking, not speaking for you... but I feel certain we agree upon this point.) If a man was a child abuser, you would not vote for him, would you? Point blank, NO, that's just too far.
I suspect that you and I are in agreement on that point, but you tell me.
IF we can agree, you and I, that there are SOME lines that should not be crossed... some behaviors that are TOO harmful, too deviant to be considered for roles like elected official or teacher, then there is a principle that we can share in common.
Given then, that there are some behaviors that are so egregious and harmful that they should NOT be considered for public office, we might then consider what behaviors ARE too "bad." Fair enough?
Being convicted of rape, being convicted of murder... we can probably agree that this is not someone we want in public office.
BUT, what if there is only the chance that they have raped someone? ...Only the chance that they have sexually assaulted someone... THEN what?
For me, given what I knew of the allegations of Bill Clinton as someone with THREE (or was it only?) rape/sexual assault allegations against him and what I could see of his character, that was sufficient for me to not vote for him. That wasn't me calling for him to be imprisoned, because there were no conclusive convictions or anything. But it was certainly problematic enough that I wouldn't vote for him. AND, when it came out that, as president - with all the authority and privilege and power that placed on him - he slept with (consensually) a 21 year old intern, well, I was outraged. It wasn't a matter of IF he might have behaved badly, but the question of, regardless of consent, he abused his power over an underling. Despicable. Beyond the pale. It was a line that should not have been crossed.
And so, I called for him to step down from office. I wrote letters to the editor calling for Democrats to do the same, to remove their support from him. Needless to say, he wouldn't have my vote of support.
That's where we are with Trump. BUT, the difference is, there are even MORE allegations against him AND, his own words laughing and boasting about sexual assault (which lent credibility to the 20+ women accusing him of abuse) and ogling half-naked teen-aged girls.
It was a line, too far. It was too much.
It wouldn't have mattered if Trump were a Democrat and the guy running against him was another Trump. I wouldn't have voted for either of them. These were lines that should not be crossed.
If we agree upon the principle (some behaviors are SO bad that a person should not at all be considered for office... that the person - even if they were emotionally damaged - should be strongly condemned and actively worked against), then the question only is, What lines are too far for you to vote for someone?
Even if you ultimately disagree with my line, can you see how I and the conservatives and moderates and liberals who agree with me are operating from a reasonable moral conviction and set of principles?
It's simply suggesting that we balance the bad with the good before passing judgement on things or people.
And to just clarify: YES, we should balance the bad with the good before passing judgments on things or people.
AND, at the same time, for certain positions/jobs/roles, there are certainly lines that should be crossed. If a man is convicted of rape, he should not be president or a teacher, for instance. If a man is REASONABLY suspected with a preponderance of evidence that he might be a sexual predator of women and girls, he should not be president or teacher.
IF a man has cheated on his wife, well, we may or may not want to consider him for president or teacher, but that would probably not be a deal breaker in either case... but it's certainly more of a judgment call.
IF, on the other hand, an older man in a position of great power has cheated on his wife with a woman just out of their teens - EVEN IF it was consensual, it is reasonable to think such a man would not be fit for the office of president and probably not for a teacher.
Like that.
In other words, it IS the better part of wisdom to pass judgment on people - we should judge reasonably in all matters and not merely take the word, for instance, of someone accused of rape that the women "wanted it" or "let him do it..." That sort of judgment would be lacking in wisdom and rather naive, wouldn't it?
Tell me true: IF Trump were a Democrat who supported abortion and LGBTQ folks AND he was a known serial cheater on multiple women/wives AND had 20+ accusations of sexual assault against him AND was caught on tape boasting about "grabbing women by the pussy..." There is ZERO chance you'd vote for that man. Am I right? AND, you would, of course, point to his sexually predatory nature and denounce him as unfit for office... wouldn't you?
If you say no, well, you know you won't be very credible on moral matters, as a matter of reasonable moral judgment.
As I hear conservatives often say, "The passage that says 'Judge not lest you be judged...' absolutely doesn't mean we should not make reasonable moral judgments given known data..." On that point, of course I and reasonable people everywhere agree with those religious conservatives. Do you?
"I am more than glad to discuss the problems, the difficulties - and the benefits - of improving our moral reasoning."
By all means, being clear would be a welcome change.
"The gas-powered motor vehicle brings obvious advantages, as you have noted. I've never said otherwise and I've been quite clear that of course, there are advantages of having faster ways of moving from here to there. As you note (and as I have often noted), there are clear moral (from being helpful point of view) advantages, for instance, of having fast moving ambulances, police cars and fire engines."
You literally spent multiple comments in a recent thread harping repeatedly on the evils of motor vehicles, you literally only mentioned a somewhat hysterical list of your perceived negatives. Absolutely ZERO mention of the positives. Pardon my confusion, but when someone only offers one side of the ledger, it seems reasonable to conclude that their focus is on that side. Now, in some other place, maybe in your mind, you've argued the positive attributes of motor vehicles. Unfortunately, I'm referring to your recent strategery of only harping on negatives.
"Of course. Never said otherwise and have noted the same thing multiple times over the years."
Well, nice straw man. I wasn't referring to things you might have thought over the years. I was specifically referring to your recent strategery.
"Thus, I've never said or suggested that motor vehicles are an all-bad option."
Yet in your recent comments you repeatedly only referred to your perceived negatives, and in fact got quite upset when I referred to motor vehicles as morally neutral. You were quite clear that motor vehicles were morally negative. I'll try to dig through your off topic comments to find your quotes at some point.
"With me so far?"
Yes, I'm with your new version of your recent comments about how morally bad motor vehicles are and how you've now tried to include some mystery thoughts you have at some point in the past.
"What I HAVE noted is that having the personal auto as the main source of transportation DOES have problems, including moral problems (from a harm to humanity point of view). And this is especially true of gas-powered vehicles, which in addition to the danger of being hit and killed by one, and in addition to the problems of traffic and sprawl, have pollution-related problems."
Yes, you repeatedly and vehemently whined about the moral harm of motor vehicles without once refering to the benefits that might offset those "harms". Exactly as I pointed out.
"As an objective, measurable fact, the policy of personal autos has negative human impacts. Tens of thousands of people are dying through no fault of their own, but through the impact of our policies about transportation. If we add pollution to the context, we're talking about millions of lives taken or harmed. Additionally, the reality is that all of this especially/disproportionately causes harm to the poor."
Thank you for making my point so eloquently. You focus on your perceived harms, while ignoring the benefits (or at least not mentioning) the benefits.
As far as the "poor" go, let's consider that the readily availability of personal motor vehicles allows them to:
Improve their chances for employment, by allowing them more options further from where they live.
Allows those that want to to start businesses. Landscaping, food trucks, painting, construction, and many others.
Gives them the freedom to work, shop, and recreate while not being bound to the fixed routes and schedules of public transit.
Gives them access to a much larger selection of consumer goods.
Gives them more freedom.
"Policies that cause harm to innocent people ARE a moral concern, at least for me. Is that true for you, as well?"
Not without considering the benefits that go along with those polices. I'll note here that you've moved the goalposts away from motor vehicles which are morally neutral, and to "policies" which may not be morally neutral.
"So, cars bring obvious benefits - even moral benefits - and obvious harms, which I think are obviously moral questions/concerns. Do you not?"
No, but I don't share your personal, subjective, moral code and I don't have any desire to label people who disagree with me about how best to use a certain tool as immoral. Again, you obsess over the "harms" many of which have diminished greatly, while barely considering the benefits.
"The question is not: Given the possibility of motor transport, should we allow it or not? The question for me and other moral philosophers is: What are the most moral and health-beneficial parameters can we place around motor vehicles?"
Dan thinks he's a "moral philosopher", that's freaking hilarious. It's interesting that in you multi comment screed about the moral evil posed by motor vehicles, you never once even mentioned this brand new theory.
"Can you see from a specifically evidence-based, reason-based moral approach, that this is a reasonable concern and set of questions?"
No, becasue morality can't be measured scientifically, nor can the objective "evidence" for morality be objectively measured, nor because "reason" is a subjective measure.
"Or, are you of the mind that it doesn't matter if people are harmed as a side-effect of cars, it's not a moral question?"
If you don't know the answer to this idiotic question, then I'm not sure I can help you.
"As to Trump, I have no doubt that he must have done some good, kind things in his life. As I've said repeatedly, he is a man who by all appearances appears to be quite damaged emotionally from an emotionally abusive childhood and the way he was raised. As I've said repeatedly, I can have sympathy for the emotionally unhealthy man, Trump, just as I do for people I and my community have worked with over the years... Homeless or mentally ill folks who continually make bad choices that harm others."
I don't know but is receiving the Ellis Island Award for "patriotism, tolerance, brotherhood, and diversity" alongside Muhammad Ali and Rosa Parks maybe an indication that trump's done "some god"?
"Emotionally-unhealthy people quite often cause harm to others not so much as a matter of intent, but due to the damage to their psyche. That is worthy of concern and human compassion.
I have compassion for Trump, the man, the individual. He's not well."
I was unaware that in addition to your JUCO journalism classes, that you also managed to procure an expert level education in psychology/psychiatry. Your ability to diagnose people you've never met with mental health issues is incredibly impressive.
I'm curious, if Trump's actions are the result of his "damage", then how can you possibly hold him accountable or refer to him as "immoral" or "evil" if the things he does are a result of "damage" to his psyche?
"But I'm certain that you agree that there ARE lines that should not be crossed. For instance, if you knew someone was a rapist, you would not vote for them for ANY office, would you? (I'm asking, not speaking for you... but I feel certain we agree upon this point.) If a man was a child abuser, you would not vote for him, would you? Point blank, NO, that's just too far."
Well, given the fact that most of the "official" racists are in the DFL camp, I'm betting that you've voted for or supported at least one of them.
But again. as per the actual topic of the post, it's not about defining someone by your perception of their worst character flaw, it's about balance. Which you seem to ignore.
"I suspect that you and I are in agreement on that point, but you tell me."
The next time you are tempted to start a sentence with "I suspect that you and I are in agreement...", do yourself a favor and just delete it.
"IF we can agree, you and I, that there are SOME lines that should not be crossed... some behaviors that are TOO harmful, too deviant to be considered for roles like elected official or teacher, then there is a principle that we can share in common."
Given your support for teachers discussing their sex lives and providing books in classrooms that teach sex techniques to elementary age students, I'm not sure you have any credibility with this. Further, these rolls are totally different and not analogous at all.
"Being convicted of rape, being convicted of murder... we can probably agree that this is not someone we want in public office."
Excellent point, but it's not really enough information. How about someone wrongly convicted of murder and exonerated? What about a man who committed murder as a teen, due to excessive drug or alcohol use, and who has completely turned their life around and been hugely successful with programs to help troubled youths learn important life skills?
It's so awesome when you prove my point when you think you're proving me wrong.
"BUT, what if there is only the chance that they have raped someone? ...Only the chance that they have sexually assaulted someone... THEN what?"
Well, then we look to our legal system which tells us that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It's why you'll hear judges instruct the jury at the beginning of a trial that the defendant is innocent until, and only until, the prosecution proves "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant and only the defendant guilty of the crime they've been changed with. So, in the US suspicion does NOT equal guilt.
"For me, given what I knew of the allegations of Bill Clinton as someone with THREE (or was it only?) rape/sexual assault allegations against him and what I could see of his character, that was sufficient for me to not vote for him. That wasn't me calling for him to be imprisoned, because there were no conclusive convictions or anything. But it was certainly problematic enough that I wouldn't vote for him. AND, when it came out that, as president - with all the authority and privilege and power that placed on him - he slept with (consensually) a 21 year old intern, well, I was outraged. It wasn't a matter of IF he might have behaved badly, but the question of, regardless of consent, he abused his power over an underling. Despicable. Beyond the pale. It was a line that should not have been crossed."
Great, you must be so proud of yourself for your principled stand in that one instance. FYI, the Lewinsky thing cannot be considered "consensual" because he had complete and total control over her employment as an intern. It's sexual harassment law/policy 101. But you keep making excuses for his behavior.
"And so, I called for him to step down from office. I wrote letters to the editor calling for Democrats to do the same, to remove their support from him. Needless to say, he wouldn't have my vote of support."
Yet you vehemently supported Hillary who was the person put in charge of attacking, slandering, and demonizing Bill's victims. She literally enabled his behavior, and participated in destroying his victims, but you'll give her a pass.
"It was a line, too far. It was too much."
For you, despite the fact that you've read all sorts of things into a small snippet of conversation with no actual grounds to do so other than your hyper partisanship.
"If we agree upon the principle (some behaviors are SO bad that a person should not at all be considered for office... that the person - even if they were emotionally damaged - should be strongly condemned and actively worked against), then the question only is, What lines are too far for you to vote for someone?"
Have you not paid any attention? Read what I've said?
"Even if you ultimately disagree with my line, can you see how I and the conservatives and moderates and liberals who agree with me are operating from a reasonable moral conviction and set of principles?"
"reasonable" is a subjective measure.
"And to just clarify: YES, we should balance the bad with the good before passing judgments on things or people."
Great you agree, now actually do what you claim you believe.
"AND, at the same time, for certain positions/jobs/roles, there are certainly lines that should be crossed. If a man is convicted of rape, he should not be president or a teacher, for instance. If a man is REASONABLY suspected with a preponderance of evidence that he might be a sexual predator of women and girls, he should not be president or teacher."
And at the same time, Dan contradicts/gives himself an escape hatch from his previous statement. As long as Dan perceives that someone has crossed some subjective line, which differs based on political party to some degree, then Dan gives himself permission to only focus on the negative and NOT take a balanced view of a person or thing.
"IF a man has cheated on his wife, well, we may or may not want to consider him for president or teacher, but that would probably not be a deal breaker in either case... but it's certainly more of a judgment call."
Well, then you just excluded FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, and Clinton for sure.
"IF, on the other hand, an older man in a position of great power has cheated on his wife with a woman just out of their teens - EVEN IF it was consensual, it is reasonable to think such a man would not be fit for the office of president and probably not for a teacher."
You can think whatever you want, that's not the problem. It's when you decide to apply your subjective "thinking" to others where you have a problem.
"Tell me true: IF Trump were a Democrat who supported abortion and LGBTQ folks AND he was a known serial cheater on multiple women/wives AND had 20+ accusations of sexual assault against him AND was caught on tape boasting about "grabbing women by the pussy..." There is ZERO chance you'd vote for that man. Am I right? AND, you would, of course, point to his sexually predatory nature and denounce him as unfit for office... wouldn't you?"
If Trump were a democrat, I wouldn't support him anyway. His support of abortion alone would disqualify him from my support. Just like there is ZERO chance I'd vote for Biden, Harris, or whoever gets magically anointed, based on policy ALONE.
"If you say no, well, you know you won't be very credible on moral matters, as a matter of reasonable moral judgment."
The fact that you somehow think that your hunches about my credibility of "moral matters" is something that I've even considered before this idiotic comment full of your self important pride, is kind of cute.
"As I hear conservatives often say, "The passage that says 'Judge not lest you be judged...' absolutely doesn't mean we should not make reasonable moral judgments given known data..." On that point, of course I and reasonable people everywhere agree with those religious conservatives. Do you?"
Yes, even though you don't seem to pay much attention to it.
But again, thank you for demonstrating the accuracy of my hunch about your strategery.
Whether cars or Trump, benefits to all Americans from both outweigh the negatives. Cars don't pollute as badly as they once did, and deaths from accidents increased due to accommodating nonsensical mandates for fuel efficiency and pollution control. Traffic deaths from reckless driving, drunk driving and such were therefore exacerbated.
To cut to the chase, inanimate objects have no moral component. Even those designed expressly for immoral purpose are not themselves immoral. Only people are or act morally or immorally.
Consequences resulting from the use of an object can be unfortunate, but only conscious disregard for negative consequences suggest immorality on the part of the user, not the object. Cars are not immoral.
Dan has very little information regarding the reality of Trump's personal life. He presumes much in order to justify his grace- embracing hatred for the man. This suggests far more reasonably Dan is severely emotionally damaged.
I would find it more reasonable to suppose 20 separate allegations if sexual assault or abuse against an ordinary man of modest means, than those against Trump. Women have little to gain beyond justice to should the accused actually be guilty. For such, there's no tangible gain should the accused be innocent.
Dan emotional damage forces him to ignore his own inconsistency in the Trump is an inveterate liar, but every lascivious utterance is gospel truth.
If any candidate of any party supports the never necessary barbarity of abortion and the perverse LGBTQ agenda of legitimizing and normalizing sexual perversion...like Dan does...that candidate's personal sexual practices wouldn't need to be considered.
Art,
You make an excellent point. The vast majority of car accidents that result in harm are related to the actions of the driver of the car engaging in behavior that is illegal, and reckless.
"Dan has very little information regarding the reality of Trump's personal life. He presumes much in order to justify his grace- embracing hatred for the man. This suggests far more reasonably Dan is severely emotionally damaged."
Absolutely, Dan is presuming all sorts of things based on one short, out of context conversation.
"I would find it more reasonable to suppose 20 separate allegations if sexual assault or abuse against an ordinary man of modest means, than those against Trump. Women have little to gain beyond justice to should the accused actually be guilty. For such, there's no tangible gain should the accused be innocent."
In Dan's world, women NEVER falsely accuse the rich and powerful of unwanted sexual advances because they are looking for money, or something. There's a reason why none of the allegations have never made it to court or been settled.
Post a Comment