pop morality

[Drich]

I don't know about yall, but when I think of things taken to be morally just by my society ..........exploitative migrant labor conditions and foreign sweatshops just jump right up at me as great examples.  I mean, think about it...every day on the news we see opinion pieces extolling the moral justness of sub par wages and substandard working conditions.  People and businesses clamor to attach their names to productive sweatshops and the worst illegal labor violations, there are committees which hand out citations to the most cruel and usory of sweatshop operations and labor law violations...so we can know who these great americans are.   When we discover them in our midst, they're universally loved and respected for their involvement with such morally just endeavors, and news broadcasts hound them constantly for an opportunity to praise them for their efforts and ethics.....................

And why not??? do you not understand without these goods and services 2/3rds population of this planet that live off of slave wages would starve and die? Where do you think the money to feed these people would come from otherwise?

Oh I know we'll tax the 1% to 99% of their income and the 1%-ers can pay for everything

Or do you not understand your blessing on slavery is granted when you continually buy products slaves produce? you may want to pretend that you maintain your moral high ground, but when black friday rolls around and a big box store is door busting a 65" next gen HD tv for less than 200 dollars, no one can say no, or better yet no one is boycotting produce meat or dairy coming out of central/south America. Doesnt anyone remember you are not supposed to have access to the same fresh fruits and vegetables year round? That's why we canned and froze them for so long.

You can pretend that you are better but where you spend your money says differently. So either you are a 'bad person' or we condone this type of slavery, and that is why it gets renamed. Not to mention their is a real need on both sides for this. If we just owned our deeds and stop covering them up, we could regulate slavery so that it would not have to be an all bad thing.

I am waving the flag, bring attention to how this society is actively participating in no restriction Slavery and is gearing up for a genocidal war, and in your mind I'm the one who endorses it?? What kind of broken mind do you have?
The problem little miss doesn't thinks she wrong, is that without owning your immoral behaivor/Changing your immorality to judtify your actions, you are making it ok to literally do the things you yourself claim is immoral!

How can you not see that?

I think that there's a little man waving a flag in your christian head, trying to get your attention....but he hasn't seen the outside world in so long he doesn't have a representative picture of reality anymore.

ouch, I'm sooo hurt by that comment, that doesnt address the point I was making. Statement withdrawn.. oh wait no, that's the same point I just made to you!

[Drich]

Again, I'm just a student of history that is identifying a pattern that plays out ever so many generations in the United States. I see the pattern already in motion and to date has yet to disappoint in it's completion of the cycle.

This is why it's been said those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it. History is the record of human nature. In society we always think ourselves better than everyone else. (even the bad guys.) When this self righteousness takes over a society it allows for all sorts of evil justifications. When two large soceities develop this at the same time it always means the same thing. Genocide.

Now, 'the west' is one self righteous society. and the middle East is the other. Ask yourself will one adopt the 'evil' acts of the other? will either ever back down or will it escalate? And so goes the pattern.

I bristle at the suggestion I do not know history. I like to think I know rather more on the subject than you.

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.
just saying...

[Drich]

We're skipping one of the most important elements of Drippy's argument, namely that he points to horrible actions done by society and thinks that we approve of whatever society says is okay, rather than using our own sense of empathy-based morality to determine what we feel is actually better for all involved*. Sometimes, powerful people get their way and try to excuse their actions based on jingoism, or religion, or whatever philosophical means they feel can help them achieve their ends... since you're referring to Nazis constantly, I'd point out that the intellectuals (even among his own party) were among the first people Hitler-and-company targeted, since they spoke out against his ideas, his abuse of science, and his violent rhetoric.

What's being skipped here is that the Bible is also (clearly, to an outside observer) a construct of society; in particular, two societies. One was an extremely violent, patriarchal warrior-tribe that believed in slavery, genocide, and blood rituals, among other things we in post-Enlightenment circles consider morally abhorrent. The second was a post-Hellenic Judea and Asia Minor under Roman control, and the reaction of people as they tried to reconcile the ancient teachings with more modern philosophical influences (particularly Paul, of course). All were written by the hands of men--they claimed to be inspired by Gawd, of course, according to Drippy and his kind--and all were constructs of their societies, with all the obvious baggage.

The difference is that we look to society and try to correct it onto an ever-better course, one that takes the maximal good for everyone involved and reduces harm to everyone. They take what was constructed 2500-1700 years ago and try to massage it until they can still tolerate the intolerable things contained within, while simultaneously trying to claim it is we who need to correct our path back onto the program set out by that ancient society. Thus all this bizarre chatter about "obedience to the will of God", which no one can quite discern in a way that everyone else agrees upon, but all seem to agree that it really is The Will of God™ that they've personally tapped into, they have a strong emotional motive for clinging desperately to it and refusing to even listen to others who try to tell them the problem with their Bronze Age moral constructs.

Because they quite literally think of the Bible as "dictated-by-God-to-His-secretaries", they refuse to see the obvious and instead must claim that is is we who "don't get it".

But we do get it. It's as plain as noses on faces. And it's pathetic.

*Edit to Add: When I say "for all involved", I mean that sometimes rights are a trade-off, or they are not supported by the majority but must be minority rights protected against the majority (see both the Federalist papers and the US Constitution). For instance, with your example of abortion and the emotional trap of "sucking baby brains out" (or however you phrased it), our courts determined that it was a far worse evil for the government to dictate to women and their doctors what they were allowed to do to their reproductive systems. They went to great lengths to explain why, and it's available online if you care enough to read Roe or Casey.  Another cited example is homosexual behavior, which you referenced earlier... it's another case of there being no harm except to the people who follow a religious book, so their right to liberty was determined to be more important, as was also the case with the recent decision on gay marriage. More people get rights, and while some are offended by that fact for ideological reasons, it really is the greatest good versus the degree of harm, a fairly simple moral/social system that we have developed in this country which should be lauded, not scorned. You Christers whine and scream about it, but the fact is all that is happening is that people are no longer being forced to follow the social constructs of a Bronze Age blood-sacrificing, genocidal sheepherder tribe, and we think that's A Good Thing™.

Swing and another miss.
I'm not saying one society is better than another. I am simply point out the justification processes you all use to make yourself seem better, then I am showing you your own hypocrisy in that no matter how much you claim this society has evolved.. by definition NOTHING HAS CHANGED! That is why your 'morality' is a crap standard that can not be used to judge anything except your own self delusion. Your 'morality' is nothing more than society lying to itself that it has changed and things are better. For some this is true, but is generally at the cost of the rest of the world's opportunity to be what we have become.

Or did you think that whole middle eastern rage against the west was just about religion?

Again not saying the world would be better off or that their society would befit the world better than this one. Just again pointing out the method in which they too use to justify their acts. Just like us, and just like the nazis they think they are the 'good guys.'

Funny how no one in the world going into a war set out to destroy the 'good guys.' That's the power 'morality' has. that is what you d-bags are defending. a system that can justify your actions no matter what they are, it just has to be marketed to the masses correctly. (which by all accounts and definitions is the meaning for the term propaganda.)

So why then do you defend a system that is controlled and regulated by propaganda?

[SofaKingHigh]

You truly are a repugnant, nasty cuntbag Drich.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Swing and another miss.
I'm not saying one society is better than another. I am simply point out the justification processes you all use to make yourself seem better, then I am showing you your own hypocrisy in that no matter how much you claim this society has evolved.. by definition NOTHING HAS CHANGED! That is why your 'morality' is a crap standard that can not be used to judge anything except your own self delusion. Your 'morality' is nothing more than society lying to itself that it has changed and things are better. For some this is true, but is generally at the cost of the rest of the world's opportunity to be what we have become.

Or did you think that whole middle eastern rage against the west was just about religion?

Again not saying the world would be better off or that their society would befit the world better than this one. Just again pointing out the method in which they too use to justify their acts. Just like us, and just like the nazis they think they are the 'good guys.'

Funny how no one in the world going into a war set out to destroy the 'good guys.' That's the power 'morality' has. that is what you d-bags are defending. a system that can justify your actions no matter what they are, it just has to be marketed to the masses correctly. (which by all accounts and definitions is the meaning for the term propaganda.)

So why then do you defend a system that is controlled and regulated by propaganda?

I think you make some excellent points (here and in your similar reply to Rhythm), for once, Drich, and so I'll start with your last question:

We defend a secular society and the moral/ethical concepts that flow from working together because, while it often goes wrong when hijacked by powerful people with an agenda (especially, as you point out, when they have control of media/propaganda). it can be set right. It will never be perfect, but we can try to perfect  it.

So now I need to pause and ask, which is it? You seem to be implying that we here are enamored with the Capitalist system, while I constantly take flak from others who think we're all a bunch of Commies. Can it be that we're more complex than that?

And while I agree that no one ever claimed they went to war to hurt "the good guys", I will disagree with you that there is no such thing as justified warfare. Some people will only listen to force; I doubt Osama bin Laden could have been convinced by rhetoric to stop killing innocent civilians for the sins (as he saw it) of their governments. I doubt we could've talked Hitler into giving Poland back. 

On the other hand, there's quite a bit of evidence that the American public was tricked into joining that war for global hegemony by practically forcing the Japanese to attack us over the oil interests in the South Pacific. We did everything to provoke them except commit an act of war or send our Ambassador to tweak the Emperor on the nose!

But for all our sins as a government, in this regard (and they are many!), we do continue to improve. Yes, our Capitalists have twisted this country into a mockery of what it's supposed to stand for in many ways-- but we still have the power to fight back against this, and we have millions of people trying to convince the tens of millions of others to do so. You're quite right that OBL and the others in the Muslim radical world like him who hate us so much do not simply hate us for not sharing their beliefs, but for the ways in which our foreign affairs/actions conflict with their social values (such as not liking to be exploited and artificially divided into fake nations with puppet monarchs to serve the West's greed, tied up and bound with exploitative contracts/treaties that favor us, the powerful), but religion is still the main recruiting tool for their fodder-minions, just like it works here.

It is incumbent upon us to ask moral questions constantly, and to search for better solutions to problems, because no government or society is perfect, but it can always be made a little better for everyone. America is too-slowly waking up to the fact that it's not an island, and that the changes-for-the-better that we're seeing in other First World nations are not being enacted here because it doesn't serve our wealthy elite to make the changes, but we are awakening. We're seeing the exploitation of others, and trying to put a stop to it, but it's hard to turn the Queen Elizabeth II.  

So, respectfully, you're wrong. Lots of things have changed. Ask our mixed-race President. Not very long ago (1967) miscegenation was illegal in numerous states. Technically, had President Obama been born in Virginia, he'd have been a felony.

Some things have indeed been relabeled and continued in another guise. Lots of things need to be changed for the better. Some things have been allowed to get worse while nobody was looking. But none of that means that we don't use our personal, subjective ideas about morality to try to improve things in our societies. The argument is not "society makes it right or wrong", but "we try to make society more right and less wrong, together, by reducing harm to others, by using our personal ideas of what-is-moral, and by convincing other people of why the present idea is more harmful/wrong/worse than our idea.

[Drich]

[downbeatplumb]

I bristle at the suggestion I do not know history. I like to think I know rather more on the subject than you.

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.
just saying...

I just said my knowledge was better than yours. This is not much of a brag. A bit like like saying I'm less of a dick than Donald Trump.

[The Grand Nudger]

And why not??? do you not understand without these goods and services 2/3rds population of this planet that live off of slave wages would starve and die? Where do you think the money to feed these people would come from otherwise?

The fact that they're paid those low wages effects the rate at which they starve and die greatly.  Where would the money come from...we could start by looking to those who exploit them - as we do, couldn't we?  By we I mean us...since you're not interested.  

Oh I know we'll tax the 1% to 99% of their income and the 1%-ers can pay for everything

I would caution against defending the 1% in a response centering around substandard wages, working conditions, and who condones them....

Or do you not understand your blessing on slavery is granted when you continually buy products slaves produce? you may want to pretend that you maintain your moral high ground, but when black friday rolls around and a big box store is door busting a 65" next gen HD tv for less than 200 dollars, no one can say no, or better yet no one is boycotting produce meat or dairy coming out of central/south America. Doesnt  anyone remember you are not supposed to have access to the same fresh fruits and vegetables year round? That's why we canned and froze them for so long.

Haven't we already discussed this?  You don't have an inventory of my household goods, nor do you know where my food comes from.  You're bitching, literally, about nothing.  

You can pretend that you are better but where you spend your money says differently. So either you are a 'bad person' or we condone this type of slavery, and that is why it gets renamed. Not to mention their is a real need on both sides for this. If we just owned our deeds and stop covering them up, we could regulate slavery so that it would not have to be an all bad thing.

Better, perhaps..than you, but I'd hardly call it pretending.  Fight the good fight in defense of slavery Drich, you're all alone.

[Drich]

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.
just saying...

I just said my knowledge was better than yours. This is not much of a brag. A bit like like saying I'm less of a dick than Donald Trump.

The point you fail to understand is that the only legit reason you would have to sum up and announce your own evaluation, it is because you don't have a fair representation of your work out there to judge your abilities.

Now in as much history that has been talked about in this forum in the last few years, if you don't feel you can be judged on your merits alone, still admits to a deficiency... However this deficiency can't be about the volume of your work to be evaluated. (as youve been a long time member who has weigh in on several different subjects.) This speaks to content, or the lack there of.

Hence, the need for the proclamation/reassurance check you are asking from your peers, and that supports my initial assertion.

The first person who has to brag about their knowledge in something in something like this is generally the person most insecure of their standing in that field.

[downbeatplumb]

I just said my knowledge was better than yours. This is not much of a brag. A bit like like saying I'm less of a dick than Donald Trump.

The point you fail to understand is that the only legit reason you would have to sum up and announce your own evaluation, it is because you don't have a fair representation of your work out there to judge your abilities.

Now in as much history that has been talked about in this forum in the last few years, if you don't feel you can be judged on your merits alone, still admits to a deficiency... However this deficiency can't be about the volume of your work to be evaluated. (as youve been a long time member who has weigh in on several different subjects.) This speaks to content, or the lack there of.

Hence, the need for the proclamation/reassurance check you are asking from your peers, and that supports my initial assertion.

You are the one who cast the first stone here buddy boy, you questioned my knowledge of history, YOU, a person who still believes in the biblical flood. So forgive me if I put your knowledge of history as being of dubious value.