henry_quirk wrote:

I, myself, would like to get back to the moral fact thread, but no one seems interested any more

Morality is not based in fact.  Morality is most often based in emotions. Same emotions that despots appeal to for power.  Morality: I should impose my religious beliefs on you.  Because my religion is moral.

Concept is so vague and distorted that it should never be associated with the word 'fact'.
 

mor·al
adjective
1. concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
"the moral dimensions of medical intervention"
Similar:
virtuous, good, righteous, upright, upstanding, high-minded, right-minded, principled, proper, honorable,
honest, just, noble, incorruptible, scrupulous, respectable, decent, irreproachable, truthful, law-abiding,
clean-living, chaste, pure, blameless, sinless,
 
Opposite:
immoral, bad, dishonorable
 
2. holding or manifesting high principles for proper conduct.
"he prides himself on being a highly moral and ethical person"
 
noun
1. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
"the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
Similar:
lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, precept, teaching
 
2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
"the corruption of public morals"
Similar:
moral code, code of ethics, moral standards, moral values

OK, as an adjective good not bad, but does not define what good and bad are.
As a noun #1 is teaching good vs bad, which means what someone else decided what good and bad entail.
#2 is your  personal collection of what you feel  is good and bad behavior.
Fair enough, but to say your collection that guides your behavior is "Moral Fact" is misleading at best.
Sure it's a fact to you, it's your chosen path, but it's not a fact to me or anyone else. If you say it's a fact because it's your way of thinking and behaving, you're saying you'll never change your mind or compromise the path under any circumstances. If you say it, and believe it, there is still no guarantee, there's no law or force to make you, strictly your decision. Because of that I don't buy it's a fact. 

What tw said.

bruce, tw, glatt: I responded here...

https://cellar.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=276

bruce, there's 2 questions waitin' on your answers in that thread

tw, mebbe instead of presumin' what my views are, you ought to read them in that thread

fargon: meh

Last edited by henry_quirk (1/06/2021 10:25 am)

henry_quirk wrote:

   tw, mebbe instead of presumin' what my views are, you ought to read them in that thread

You told us all exactly what your views are. You said you want to "wreck shit". And fully endorsed and encouraged the delusional Trump.  Are you suddenly admitting how evil Trump has been his entire life?  Are you now claiming you do not want to "wreck shit"?

You did not condem Trump for taking the kids away from parents who were seekig political asylum.  And now remain silent because extremists made it impossible to reunite 400 kids with their parents even today.

Or that post that demeaned women?  Where is the aplogy for that.  When women from the Cellar condemed you for that sexist comment?

Last edited by tw (1/06/2021 5:31 pm)

henry_quirk wrote:

 I've asked you before to detail exactly what he's done as prez that's criminal and you never answered the question, not one time...

As the Mueller report makes so clear, Trump ordered numerous impeachable crimes.  Only reason they did not happen?  Subordinates intentionally ignored his orders.  The book says:

Trump's aides essentially saved their boss from his worst impulses by ignoring his directives to interfere with the Mueller investigation.

For example, Trump called Don McGahn to tell acting attorney general that Mueller must be removed.

McGahn did not carry out the direction, however, deciding he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.

The fact that he gave the Russian foreign Minister and Ambassador, in the Oval Office, a most secret British intelligence report (only shared with the US) is also not a crime.  Because the president can give away any national secrets that he wants. That is an honest man?  Of course not.  So many Americans also love Mafioso bosses.

We know Don, Jr and Trump people repeatedly tried to get Russian assistance in the 2016 electrons.  Trump did not order it.  But apparently knew about it and did not put a stop to it. 

Carter Paige was also setting up contacts with Russian agents to help get Trump elected.  Campaign officials 'distanced' themselves from Paige before Trump could take advantage.  Meanwhile Russian intelligence (IRA)  while working with Paige, setup numerous internet accounts on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter with only one purpose.  To get Trump elected.  Many Trump campaign rallies were initiated by the IRA via hundreds of internet accounts.  Impeachable crimes?  Probably not.  But clearly an example of a corrupt man. A man who constantly praises Putin and denigrates all 17 American Intelligence agencies.  His loyalties have been to Putin; not America.   That also is not an impeachable crime.  Trump was walking that unethical line all his life.

Meanwhile another Russian intelligence agency, two units of the GRU, were spearheading operations to subvert the Clinton campaign and steal campaign strategies.  I always wondered why a Clinton ad on TV was immediately followed by a Trump ad.  Apparently they knew what the Russians had stolen.  Trump's campaign had numerous Russian support.  But again, not enough evidence to convict Trump.  Others were convicted.

I worked for someone just like Trump.  He once ordered me to steal software from other company divisions (a license violation).  Some others later did what he ordered.  Ended up prosecuted in Federal court by the FBI.  I simply told those people what I was ordered to do.  Wasted the day with them. Then reported back that they had no useful software.  I choose not become a victim of another Trump like person.  Others were not savvy.  The boss never was prosecuted.

Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.

  Within five hours, the GRU got into and was stealing documents from Clinton's personal computer.  Impeachable?  Probably not.  But typical of a Mafia crime boss.  Rico laws do not apply to a president.

Kurshner was presented with numerous Russian intelligence for the 2016 campaign.  Others who were involved stated so.  But did Kurshner share that with Trump? Officially no.  But again, just not quite enough to convict Trump.  Exactly what the Godfather does.

Like Watergate, so many Trump people were convicted of crimes.  Like Nixon, Trump was able to just stay far enough away.  For example, Michael Flynn was the primary conduit between Trump and the Russians during the transition period. Flynn was working with Ruissians (when it was illegal) to negotiate international deals.  Such as a UN vote on the Middle East.  Did Trump not know any of this? Legally the crime cannot be proven.  But the Russians and Egyptians did what he wanted - when Obama was still president.  That reeks of Treason.

That reeks of Nixon.  Who discovered Johnson was going to negotiate a settlement in Nam.  Then Nixon sent a secret message to N Vietnam.  Don't make a deal with Johnson.  And I will offer a better deal.  How many tens of thousands of Americans died after that message?   Criminal?  Prove it.  Corrupt leaders are savvy.

Mueller also noted that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted for crimes.  And that a sitting president

does not have immunity after he leaves office.

  Why are so many speculating on whether Trump will pardon himself before leaving office?  He is subject to numerous crimes once he leaves.  Explains why he must say anything to subvert the voter's will.  Others who were guilty of those crimes could (and were) prosecuted.  Notice how many potential co-conspirators are being pardoned.  So they need not testify against Trump.  

But somehow Trump is an honest man - just like Al Capone.  Except Capone got caught on taxes.  Trump has managed to avert prosecution by even firing the assistant attorney general investigating so many tax inconsistencies.  Making him a better crime boss than Al Capone

And finally, 

Fourth, if we had confidence ... that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.

  They clearly did not 'state' for obvious reasons - reiterated in his Congressional testimony.  And just another reason why expected is Trump will pardon himself and his entire family. 

Is he a criminal because he did not pay contractors on Taj Mahal?  Not a criminal act.  But again, not anywhere near an honest leader.

He defaulted on loans to every major American bank.  Again, not criminal.  Another example of a man who is only criminal enough to not be prosecuted.

No patriotic American could admire this delusional president.
 

Last edited by tw (1/06/2021 10:20 pm)

Which goes right back to the question of your fundamental philosophies.  Why do you praise something this corrupt?

And why do you want, for example, what created the Flint water crisis to now be legal all over America.  Because you want to "wreck shit".

and I popped open that pdf and said nope

I ain't wadin' thru all that hokum, not again

more generally: your list of offenses is surely impressive, though I have no clue how many are fact and how many are wishful thinkin'

it really comes down to this, tw: if ORANGE MAN is so corrupt, how come his fat keister ain't coolin' in a prison? so much badness committed by a crazy idiot and not only is he free but he's the prez!

I know, I know: putin done it

mebbe smokin' joe can confirm that when he -- clinton reset button in hand -- starts lookin' to make nice with vlad (assumin' the houseplant's employer [what's the name of china's prez?] signs off on that)

tw wrote:

henry_quirk wrote:

 if ORANGE MAN is so corrupt, how come his fat keister ain't coolin' in a prison?

Clearly stated.  By Mueller.  In that post. The nature of a mafioso boss.  And by example - ie Al Capone.

Since Al Capone was never convicted of his crimes and murders, then he too must have been a good guy.

Since  "Big Paul" Castellano, crime boss of NYC, was never convicted, then he too must have been an honest man.

That is your logic.

 

 
nope...wrong (again)

never said ORANGE MAN was good or honest

mebbe the only thing he was: neccessary

Last edited by henry_quirk (1/07/2021 10:13 pm)

I've already read that thread and you haven't convinced me any of your selected morality is a fact. You believe slavery is wrong, so do I, but there are plenty of people that disagree. Therefore it's not a fact, it's an opinion.

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

I've already read that thread and you haven't convinced me any of your selected morality is a fact. You believe slavery is wrong, so do I, but there are plenty of people that disagree. Therefore it's not a fact, it's an opinion.

why?

I can, and have, told you why slavery is wrong

your turn

All opinions, theory, conjectures, stay that way until they are proven, then they become fact.
We can prove the earth is round so it's a fact.
Climate change is proven with records, it's cause is not.
I doubt women want to be dragged down to the level of men.
I didn't say opinions are not true, some are, but they are not facts until proven.
Even if every human on earth agreed it still wouldn't be a fact until proven.
But with 100% agreement for social issues people can act to make it a fact.

IC wrote:

xoxoxoBruce wrote:

All opinions, theory, conjectures, stay that way until they are proven, then they become fact.
We can prove the earth is round so it's a fact.

Yes, Bruce...but at one time we couldn't prove that.  Not one person on the globe knew he/she was on a globe, and there was no proof at all.  Now, you can't be saying that that made it a mere "opinion" that the Earth still WAS a globe, can you?

The fuck I can't.
Long before Columbus sailed the astronomers had figured out the world was not flat but politics and the church squashed those voices. I'd guess up to that point most people didn't give a shit. The Earth has always been roundish but it was just a theory, an opinion until it could be proven. 

Likewise with the others.  If "many people think" is enough to make something "not a fact,"

Whoa, I didn't say that. Don't be twisting shit around.

 then climate change is not a fact.  And again, simply that you believe it is, does not make it a fact, if that's the right definition of what makes a thing a fact or an opinion: because climate change doubters have evidence too.  So do those who think there may be climate change, but it may not be man-made.

Climate change has been proven, it is a fact. What's causing it is being debated, and won't become a fact until proven one way or the other.

As for women, what does what they want have to do with the question, if men doubting their status is sufficient to render their wishes mere "opinion"?  Just how can a woman go about "proving" that she deserves to be regarded as a life equal that of men?  The men have contrary facts, in fact: she's smaller, weaker, more fragile, can do less physical work, is more emotional, etc.  These are the traditional proofs presented as the counter case.  So how can you say that the equality of men and woman is a "fact," if doubts can be raised (and are still raised by the majority of males and females on the planet), and these doubts are premised in what are considered "proofs"?

You brought women into this not me, peddle that shit somewhere else because that's unrelated to science. That's a social issue and like I said can be changed with everyone on board.

Even if every human on earth agreed it still wouldn't be a fact until proven.

If that's true, then it wasn't true that the Earth was a globe until people could prove it was.  Before that, I guess it was flat?

Why can't you understand we don't determine whether the earth is round, flat, or square, only whether our knowledge of it is theory or fact.

But with 100% agreement for social issues people can act to make it a fact.

So if German society prior to WW2 had been 100% convinced Jews were poisoning the water, then THAT would have become a "fact," by that definition?   

Get the fuck out of here with that stupid shit, it's a social issue, not science,  you'd need 100% and that includes the Jews to make it a fact.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."  Max Planck