I’m not sure how much of this I really agree with, but your explanation of your view makes sense.
This entire post did nothing to give specific answers to his questions; just vague claims that Trump not only worse, but much worse. Again, I’m no Trump fan. But your claims in this post are a nothing burger.
It’s funny because the same dictionary does not mention sin in its definition of immorality:
Definition of immorality
1 : the quality or state of being immoral; especially : unchastity
2 : an immoral act or practice
Sin is a religious concept that sets certain actions as immoral from a religious basis.
Eating meat on Saturday was, at one time considered a sin, but that can only be viewed as a sin in a religious context.
Ordering genocide is immoral in every context except a religious one (think Amalekites).
So no, immorality is not the same as sin unless you believe that sins are immoral, but by definition, these are religious concepts.
One thing I’ve learned from about a decade of posting on this and similar sites is that it’s a self-selecting group that tends to be political news junkies. In most cases, everyone has access to the same basic facts. Discussion therefore comes down to interpretation of those facts rather than producing new facts. So a discussion often goes like this:
Person 1 states an opinion.
Person 2 states contrary opinion, asks for evidence for person 1’s opinion.
Person 1 produces evidence for opinion
Person 2 is already aware of that evidence and has already determined to interpret it differently.
The two people end up wasting a lot of time talking past each other.
In the case of Qix, we both have access to the same facts. There are no new facts in my possession that I can produce in hopes of changing his mind. We have both looked at the evidence and have different moral interpretations of that evidence. It used to be fun, when I had lots of time, to play the whole game of long point by point rebuttals of posts game. But now I have kids, a full time job, and a mortgage. So I’ll leave that game to you guys, and perhaps return to it when I’m happily retired.
For now, you’re just going to have to be content with me stating my opinion and my interpretation of the evidence, and perhaps consider if some of what I’m saying might be a plausible interpretation of those facts.
LOL. Now J. Anderson is pretending he has the power to understand and know President Trump’s “serious moral thought.” I don’t know whether to despair of such hubris or laugh at it’s silliness. Anderson is projecting…again.
Wrong! Eating meat on FRIDAYS was forbidden (or at least discouraged) by the Catholic Church for some years. It was never considered a “sin.”
LOL, told you I’m not religious. It’s really irrelevant to the point I was making, though it figures you took me so literally when you constantly make excuses for the President when he’s wrong, willing to interpret his words in anyway that’s favorable.
It’s ok, you are probably right, I could be wrong and I wouldn’t want you making excuses for me. I’ll own my mistake, it wasn’t the point of what I was trying to say anyway…Which you conveniently ignored.
Sins are violations against gods law, immorality are acts that society deems wrong or unacceptable.
They aren’t the same, that’s the point.
So this is your personal opinion, based on your personal observations through your personal moral (for lack of a better word) ‘filter’ ? That is 100% fair enough. He’s definitely not a candidate for canonization. But I see no evidence of criminality.
Not my goal. Plenty of fair criticisms to be leveled at him, on personal and policy grounds. Those do not rise to the level of impeachable offenses or constitute grounds for overturning the results of a legitimate election. What I am defending is the electoral choice of the American people, unless and until high crimes and misdemeanors are conclusively proven.
Interesting choice of words, ‘seeming’. One might say that it describes a personal perception, yes?
Heh, where did that get us? Endless wars of choice, chaos in the middle east, nuclear armed enemies in Iran and N.K.?
Please tell us your qualifications to make that judgement, and on what basis it is made.
IIRC, you have long advocated for our political institutions to adopt more democratic (populist) processes as opposed to more republican ones. Also, IIRC, you were warned that the fickle mob would not always embrace the (classically) liberal policies and politicians you would prefer.
I can easily imagine a day when you will long for a return to the relative sanity and stability of the Trump administration. Let’s hope not, though, and do our best to avoid it.
I admit that the election of Trump has left me somewhat shaken regarding democracy. I never thought a person like that could actually be elected president in America. Looks like Arendt and the other German Emigres were right all along. This really is a very dangerous country, and I suppose they were right that no country is beyond catastrophic moral corruption. I suppose I have to confront the fact that I was naive in my view of America as being a fundamentally morally sane political society.
It’s definitely caused me to become more republican in my outlook.
As for the rest, we’re just very far apart in our perceptions. I’m not sure we’ll find much common ground here.
Oh, thank goodness! i wouldn’t know how to deal with that!
It is true that freedom has the inherent potential for misuse.
Of course not. People are corruptible, and people are people everywhere.
I believe the electorate is, but the political machinery (the parties, the PACs, the ‘bundlers’ and even the press) are most definitely not. I firmly believe that the way Clinton achieved the nomination when Sanders won the votes had a lot to do with Trump’s victory.
I’ll call that a win for “Team Conservative”.
If Trump is the totalitarian monster you believe, we’ll find out if the checks and balances built into the system are, in fact, still properly functioning. If not, there’s always the second amendment…for now, anyway.
Just to be clear, I don’t think it’s America’s liberties that make it a dangerous society (quite the contrary, I think that government authority is almost always more dangerous than civic liberties). I think it’s the moral corruption of our political system and the electorate.
I do think Trump is a totalitarian monster. But I also think the country can withstand him. He’ll do a ton of damage to the moral and political identity of the country before he’s done. But what I’m more worried about is what follows him. Trump demonstrates that large portions of American voters are morally bankrupt. The real question isn’t whether we can survive Trump. It’s whether we can survive the older generations of White voters who have become twisted and despicable; selfish, racist, and wicked. The Boomers were always a terrible generation—they’ve been trying their best to destroy America since practically the first days they were able to vote—luckily, our society won’t have to endure their greed and hypocrisy much longer.
Heh. This will be without context for you (unless you already read the comic), but the last panel is fitting, here, I think. https://www.schlockmercenary.com/2011-07-01
And we’re back to standard ‘progressive’ racial identity politics talking points, as if any identity group is monolithic.
If you wish to operate as a citizen with even a modicum of ethical good faith, you’re going to have to come to grips with the reality that this country is profoundly racist, and that to exist as a Black American is to exist with profoundly less safety and liberty than White Americans.
Nonsense. Trump’s perceived (by you) “immorality” is simply that he doesn’t do things like any of his predecessors did them. He’s CERTAINLY not “totalitarian.” HE follows the Constitution…even though many of our “federal judges” choose not to do so. The latest example being that DACA was established by an “Executive Order” by Obama–not by legislation–and President Trump negated DACA by another Executive Order and some idiot judge thinks Obama’s Unconstitutional EO somehow supersedes Trump’s CONSTITUTIONAL EO.
Secondarily, people voted for Trump because the only viable alternative was so abhorrent. He’s turning out to be, BY FAR, the better choice, too. Economy booming, housing starts up, taxes down, and we’re FINALLY starting to do something about our southern border to stem the ILLEGAL invasion of our country. We’re also finding out about the corruption in the federal bureaucracies…which we’ve SUSPECTED was going on for decades, and for the first time in 60+ years, NoKo is coming to the negotiating table without preconditions imposed on US.
Yet the definition of sin as immorality is there. The absence of the reverse being explicit doesn’t negate it; I stand by what I said.
And that “what society deems” is an unstable and ultimately meaningless definition. Most middle eastern Muslim societies deem the existance of Israel to be immoral, and its annihilation to be emminantly moral.
Like I’ve said before: How can you have a meaningful moral law without an immovable moral law Giver?
I never thought that someone as whacked as Hillary could even be a serious contender.
Hogwash. Does racism exist in America? Sure; among all races (not just your favorite boogie monster). Profoundly racist? We’re one of the least racist nation on the planet, and especially in the western world. “Profoundly less safety and liberty than white Americans” my patootie.
J. Anderson: Do you know what, by FAR, is the most dangerous place for a black American? It’s in a black NEIGHBORHOOD and blacks are 500 TIMES more likely to be murdered by another black than by a white perp.
I’m not saying that what society says is right, is right, I’m saying that the consequences of moral actions are determined by society. Christians owned slaves. Slavery was, at one time, considered moral by people who believed in god, who would claim their faith in the lord and their dedication to him is every bit as strong as yours. People used the Bible to justify slavery.
If the Bible is such a clear accounting of gods word and you need a moral lawgiver to figure out what’s right and what’s wrong, how could there ever have been any ambiguity about slavery?
If the US was founded as a “Christin nation”, and slavery is immoral, tell me, how is it that the institution of slavery was deemed acceptable by so many people?
Even after slavery ended, black people were terrorized and treated as second-class citizens. Records show that 4400 black people were lynched in areas where Christianity was prevalent and any of the people that took part showed their faces proudly, yet they weren’t widely condemned by the vast majority of those that held influence within the Church.
Now you’re going to remind me that the people that opposed slavery were also Christian and Christians played a big part in making slavery illegal. My point is if God’s laws are so clear, why was slavery, as it was routinely practiced in the US in the early 1800’s, ever accepted by large groups of people (I mean we’re not talking about fringe groups here)?
Because it wasn’t “Christianity” that convinced people slavery was wrong, it was the society that re-evaluated the position of slavery and innately understood that it was unfair, cruel, and wrong. And you don’t need a “moral lawgiver” to understand that. Now in fairness, there is a lot in the Bible that would uphold an anti-slavery position. The problem is, there are also passages that justify it. It’s not clear and people exploited that.
Now, I want to be crystal clear on something. I’m not saying that Christianity promotes slavery, though there are passages in the Bible that I think can be interpreted that way. The point I’m making is people judged for themselves what was right and wrong, no different than a secular person might value ideas of fairness and justice. In all cases, people simply have to choose what ideas they value and cooperate and convince others they are values worth believing in.
Easy, convince those around you that pain, suffering, and sickness is bad. Convince people that valuing actions that lead to those outcomes is bad. Form a society and promote values that avoid these outcomes were ever possible. As new information comes along (smoking in a car with kids harms your kids). Show the evidence and stop doing it. Society learns as it moves along and understanding advances that things that might have been ok, are deemed to cause harm and make the choice as a society to stop ding it.
Those societies that allow immoral acts are socially retarded. They have limited their own capacity to learn lessions. Usually, religion is responsible and the justification for failing to move forward. It is science and secularisim that pushes moral progress, not religion.
I’m not sure on the numbers, but this is accurate otherwise.
Ahhh yes, the white man’s excuse to ignore all other factors and simply diagnose the problem as a broader cultural failing in the black community as a way to obscure the economic and social inequalities that contribute to high crime rates in black neighborhoods.
Well, Mr. former detective, it shouldn’t come as a shock to you that black people aren’t uniquely predisposed to commit crimes against each other; crime is generally just racially segregated, based on a number of factors, including that most people commit crimes against people they either know or live near.
According to the FBI’s 2014 Uniform Crime Reports, close to 90 percent of African-American homicides were committed by other African Americans, while the majority (82 percent) of white American homicide victims were killed by other white people.
Is there a cultural failing in the white community as well? I mean the difference is just 8%.
Another factor that contributes to crime is poverty (I assume as a former detective you know that). A 2014 special report by the Department of Justice found that black and white households that lived in poverty were much more likely to be victims of crime, and were victims of crimes at similar rates (51.3 per 1,000 compared with 56.4 per 1,000, respectively).
Hmmmm…maybe it’s not just the color of your skin that determines your propensity to be a victim of crime? Maybe there is an economic element as well?
So is there more poverty in the black community?
A 2015 report by the Century Foundation found that more than one in four African Americans lived in concentrated poverty, in comparison to one in 13 white people.
Meanwhile, white families have six times as much wealth as black families, and the poverty rate for black people (27.2 percent) is almost three times that of their white counterparts (9.6 percent).
Quoted from AoSHQ:
“Thomas Sowell points out, in “Economic Facts And Fallacies,” that “The percentage of black families with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960,” and the pace of the decline slowed in the 1970s. He also points out that the movement of Blacks from agricultural work to white collar occupations doubled between 1940 and 1960…before the Civil Rights act of 1964.”