Liberals aren't evil... they just have a narrow range of morality

[AlpsStranger]

I thought you were joking when I saw "Conservapedia". But, lo! You weren't!

Great site.

Oh man, you don't even know.

The myth. The legend. The unlanced boil of the internet.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Disclaimer: I am partially disabled.

Since we all have read your posts, we're all aware of your mental disabilities.

 

[Borachio]

Disclaimer: I am partially disabled.

I don't think anyone has a right to a place in society in terms of central government giving them rights at the barrel of a gun.

Jesus healed the blind. I endorse that message.

Yes. He healed the blind and other disabled people by saying their sins were forgiven.

Is that how you see disability? As the consequence of a sinful life?

 

[Core Imposter]

That's fair enough given your other beliefs. I've got to respect your apparent sincerity and willingness to not go the easy route of just throwing evolution under the bus like many of your brothers.

The reason that Christians rejected evolution and espoused the literal truth of the Bible stems from the fact that most Christians were illiterate throughout much of history and the Catholic church dealt with that by settng up a system where the faithful were instructed by rote and were even told that they needed a priest to intercede for them.

So naturally, when the mass of humanity found itself able to read and suddenly had access to the Bible in a language they could understand it was, as still is, a struggle for understanding. The Bible must be understood spiritually, and individuals must work it out on their own.

I am perfectly content that my faith will stand up to scientic discovery. If aliens from a distant galaxy were to land in my front yard, I would be very interested to know if Christ died and was ressurected in their homeworld as He was here, if not, I would happily share the gospel and let someone else sort out whether or not they have souls.

 

[AlpsStranger]

You're a strange man, MisterCooper, but the world would be a more boring place without you in it.

 

[Core Imposter]

Yes. He healed the blind and other disabled people by saying their sins were forgiven.

Is that how you see disability? As the consequence of a sinful life?

Sin can certainly disable us and as a person can suffer birth defects as a result of the actions of their mother and father, certainly that could be a consequence of their sinful life. But of course I do not endorse the old doctrine that disabled persons are being punished because of their sin. That is a pretty stupid thing to think.

You really have to think what Christ did. He forgave sins, which had eternal and spiritual consequence. The physical effect was as a sign of God's power, but it was inconsequential relative to the gift of mercy and life.

Part of the message is that we should not be so overly concerned about life's afflictions which are temporary and more focused on the important things.

 

[Berzerker]

First is care/harm; we are sensitive to signs of suffering and need, and despise cruelty.

doesn't that cover it all?

 

[Leoreth]

You might have no problem with evolution, but you seem to be stuck at the wrong theory of it. Breaking news: Lamarck was wrong.

 

[Angst]

Liberty/oppression and authority/subversion where authority and liberty is seen as good makes a good policy inconsistent with itself. There are aspects of each that mess up the aspects of the other. Meaning a "good" policy would be hypocritical.

I know it means that stuff like police in a liberal country is inconsistent with liberty, but the concept of freedom is inconsistent with itself anyways so meh.

Also, one could argue that sanctity/degradation is another name for liberty/oppression. Loyalty/betrayal is also another name for authority/subversion.

.

And now I read the rest of the post. It's propagandist moralist rubbish to me; while interesting, I give you that, I'm interested in what exactly he's trying to point out.

First off, the article is a dumb branding of liberalism as something non-moralistic; "We have a moral system which divides good from evil, they're not evil, they just have an incomplete moral system". When was it a good thing to vote for the more moralistically fundamentalist party?

Also the article American-centric and does not concern with actual ideologies or moralities but rather specific American political parties; but I'd assume it wouldn't be a problem because American politics have an issue discerning ideological fundamentalism from politics.

So summary of my post; it seems like a condenscendation on moral high ground where he instills conservatism as the morally better system. It's just problematic as the real world isn't fantasy. I would care less if I voted for Chaotic Evil Orcs or Lawful Good High Elves. All I want is to be happy and the good/evil dichotomy should have no place when it comes to making political decisions; that very dichotomy is part of the reason why some Islamist states have such humongous issues arranging for their peoples prosperous.

 

[potatokiosk]

doesn't that cover it all?

If you're a utilitarian, then yes.

 

[Agent327]

There's an... interesting... article that I want to share with you.

Haidt believes

Is he right?

Is he right about what? Believing?

 

[Quackers]

Since we all have read your posts, we're all aware of your mental disabilities.

classy as usual pal

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

classy as usual pal

It's my narrow range of morality getting the best of me.

 

[Leoreth]

I actually started out trying to address his different dimensions of morality, but then I realized that they're just red herrings trying to distract you from the lack of actual content. It all comes down to this:

Conservatives, on the other hand, care about all six dimensions. Their most sacred value is to ''preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community''.

So, conservatives are more moral because they care about things that are moral? The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club?

He has also done nothing to substantiate why his dimensions of morality are essential, and why some shouldn't be more important than others.

 

[classical_hero]

Everyone is a sinner according the bible and thus we are all evil.

 

[Borachio]

According to the Buddha, we are all ignorant and therefore we all suffer.

 

[Farm Boy]

Where in that post did anyone say anything about evil? Unless there are really some doozies in the rest of the article not shown all that was said is that conservatives tend to extend moral consideration to more things than liberals. It didn't say those things should be valued or that not valuing them is wrong, merely that they are valued. If you roll with that premise, then the statement of the article can be correct - that a conservative can understand a liberal value system while a liberal is somewhat bewildered by a conservative one, since they are attaching value to something a more liberal mindset finds valueless. If you are attaching good/evil to the quote in the OP you are really looking far too hard for reasons to be indirectly insulted.

 

[Leoreth]

Everyone is a sinner

Oh no!

according the bible

Ah, never mind then.

 

[warpus]

Where in that post did anyone say anything about evil? Unless there are really some doozies in the rest of the article not shown all that was said is that conservatives tend to extend moral consideration to more things than liberals.

I don't know if I agree.. 2 Counterexamples: same-sex marriage rights & woman body rights

That this article begins with the pronouncement that "liberals aren't evil" should be a red flag that the author has an agenda.

 

[Farm Boy]

Or it could be that the author is anticipating the trite "yer callin meh evil!" response.