4 ms·

Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy

by tomgp 10y ago

Wrong. This exactly the kind of sophistry that Marco refutes. Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive >in a democracy everyone have the right to say and mean what they want without having to fear the repercussions No, that's not what free speech is. You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences.

civilian 10y ago
Political positions are not moral positions. There's more than one way to accomplish a goal, and even if you share goals, it might be that you just think that the priority of these goals are different. I think the best way to increase the American quality of life is to allow more choices, more trade, and reduce taxation. This gets me branded as being "anti-poor". I want the same thing as you, I just think there's different ways to go about it. I'll granted that sometimes political positions come from moral positions, but they are not a 1:1 match, and you can't claim you know the best way to enact a set of moral positions.
- genericpseudo 10y ago
  All positions on anything at all are moral positions; including your willingness to compromise to achieve goals.
daxorid 10y ago
You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences. So, for the sale of argument: if Trump is democratically elected and then begins reprisals of his political enemies, you must accept those consequences?
- SolaceQuantum 10y ago
  The right to free speech means the government cannot or should not punish you for speech (save for when it poses a danger, like creating imminent threat to someone else's wellbeing). Everyone else is free to respond to and criticize someone for their speech (as long as that response doesn't involve, say, assault). This includes the writing of articles against someone else's decision of where to spend their money.
pbhjpbhj 10y ago
>Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive // But so to is to believe that one can't vote for someone who has acted, or intends to act, immorally and yet maintain the most ethical position. Here in the UK for example: suppose one party is for nuclear weapons, another is for killing the NHS, another is for war in Syria. I might consider all those positions immoral but nonetheless I'd [most likely] cast a vote. From the OP: >"This isn’t voting for an economic or social policy — this is literally paying a huge amount of money to directly support [...unethical acts...]." So, if you see Clinton winning as leading to even greater travesties what should you do? Not vote for Trump, Trump is surely the only other reasonable option. Maybe Thiel does support those unethical acts, but we surely can't tell, it seems as likely from the sidelines that he simply sees that if Trump gets in Thiel personally will be better off. That seems to be the way a lot of people vote.

by tomgp 10y ago

civilian 10y ago

Political positions are not moral positions. There's more than one way to accomplish a goal, and even if you share goals, it might be that you just think that the priority of these goals are different. I think the best way to increase the American quality of life is to allow more choices, more trade, and reduce taxation. This gets me branded as being "anti-poor". I want the same thing as you, I just think there's different ways to go about it. I'll granted that sometimes political positions come from moral positions, but they are not a 1:1 match, and you can't claim you know the best way to enact a set of moral positions.

genericpseudo 10y ago
All positions on anything at all are moral positions; including your willingness to compromise to achieve goals.

daxorid 10y ago

You have the right to say what you want but you must accept the consequences. So, for the sale of argument: if Trump is democratically elected and then begins reprisals of his political enemies, you must accept those consequences?

SolaceQuantum 10y ago
The right to free speech means the government cannot or should not punish you for speech (save for when it poses a danger, like creating imminent threat to someone else's wellbeing). Everyone else is free to respond to and criticize someone for their speech (as long as that response doesn't involve, say, assault). This includes the writing of articles against someone else's decision of where to spend their money.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago

>Political positions are moral positions, to believe otherwise is hopelessly naive // But so to is to believe that one can't vote for someone who has acted, or intends to act, immorally and yet maintain the most ethical position. Here in the UK for example: suppose one party is for nuclear weapons, another is for killing the NHS, another is for war in Syria. I might consider all those positions immoral but nonetheless I'd [most likely] cast a vote. From the OP: >"This isn’t voting for an economic or social policy — this is literally paying a huge amount of money to directly support [...unethical acts...]." So, if you see Clinton winning as leading to even greater travesties what should you do? Not vote for Trump, Trump is surely the only other reasonable option. Maybe Thiel does support those unethical acts, but we surely can't tell, it seems as likely from the sidelines that he simply sees that if Trump gets in Thiel personally will be better off. That seems to be the way a lot of people vote.