[Lord Dave]

I'd buy 'fuck liberals' but not weakness.
They complain about the rioting and destruction, calling liberals violent and hating on them.

I honestly think it literally just boils around 'Liberals are bad' and everything goes from there.

If Liberals started arming up like crazy, suddenly guns would be bad.  Happened with the Black Panthers.

What makes you think that Liberals are good? At least conservatives groups often point towards religion as their moral base. What do Liberals point to for their moral base?

Political view points is not morality. 

But if you wanna involve religion, remember, Jesus would cure people without charging for it. (Free healthcare).  Nor would he use a weapon to defend himself.  Exactly which conservative views translate to religion again?

[Tom Bishop]

Political view points is not morality.

People derive their views from multiple sources, including morality.

But if you wanna involve religion, remember, Jesus would cure people without charging for it. (Free healthcare).  Nor would he use a weapon to defend himself.  Exactly which conservative views translate to religion again?

What? Free Healthcare isn't free. The money doesn't just come out of thin air. If you rephrase it as putting a multi trillion dollar health care system on the backs of the American public and raising of taxes it doesn't sound so free anymore.

Medicine is already socialized in the US - Medicare for old people and Medicaid for low income people. I don't see why we need to change things. Why should people who are working and able to pay for their own insurance get Free Healthcare too? Can you expand on that?

It sounds more fair and moral to have this hybrid system that helps the people who are actually in need, not an ill-thought free-medicine-for-all scheme. People are already able to pay for their own insurance and contribute to the medical system without an extra layer of breauracy.

It also gives people more of a choice. Maybe they have a lot of dental work done on one year and don't want to pay for dental insurance on the next year. Maybe they are young and don't forsee chronic ongoing conditions and want a plan tailored for emergencies, or are old and want a more comprehensive plan than what the government might standardize and allow. They may risk medical bankruptcy to cover something if they mess up, but it's all necessary in the freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

In fact, based on laws in recent years, you can get insurance if you have a pre-existing condition now, so you don't even have to worry about messing up with your plans. You can just scam the system and get covered for insurance for pre-existing conditions when you shoudn't and weasel your way into getting undeserved benefits like you want to with your professed socialist ideals.

[Rama Set]

Nice job of not answering Dave’s question.

[Lord Dave]

Nice job of not answering Dave’s question.

This.

Seriously Tom, I asked you what coservative views are in line with Religious views.  (lets go with Christianity since most of America is Christian).  But instead you went on a rant about health care and why having a hybrid system is somehow morally better than if everyone was on one insurance system, paid for via taxes. 

I was fully expecting you to throw up Abortion but nope.  Not even the easy one.  Sheesh, you're slipping.




In other Trump news, Trump did something good.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/08/900516854/in-executive-actions-trump-extends-unemployment-benefits

He then made promises he can't possibly keep (keeping the tax cut if elected) nor did he seem to understand that he's deferring the payroll tax, not forgiving it.  In essence, if he wins or loses, businesses will need to pay that tax and its gonna hurt when the bill comes due.

[Tom Bishop]

Nice job of not answering Dave’s question.

If Dave, or you, want to argue for Free Health Care and how it is morally fair or better then you guys should probably address the fact that there are already socialized programs for the old and disabled and poor and explain how free-healthcare-for-all fixes anything, or gives us more health options.

The fact is that your arguments are weak and you  cannot appropriately defend your views. Some sort of 'everything should be freeeeeee' thinking that can't adequately show us how it is better than the current system.

[Lord Dave]

Tom... Jesus did not charge for curing people nor did it cost him anything.  It was literally free.

Now, answer the question.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom... Jesus did not charge for curing people nor did it cost him anything.  It was literally free.

Now, answer the question.

What question? Your point was that free health care was better and the current system we want to keep is immoral. We already have free health care for people who need it. We are already doing it in the current system.

I don't think Jesus in the Bible went around performing services for rich people who could afford it. He made bread for the hungry. He didn't make bread for the rich and higher class. I must have missed that part.

Perhaps intelligent people and government planners have already thought about this, have put the best and most appropriate and balanced system in place, and we don't need you socialists butting in with your new radical health care ideas. We do spend millions of dollars just to think about and analyze this sort of stuff, you know.

[garygreen]

What do Liberals point to for their moral base?

i can only speak for myself, but my moral code is exceedingly simple.

i think cruelty and suffering are the greatest moral evils. i think freedom and autonomy are the greatest moral goods. i do not require a separate/external moral authority to justify those axioms.

to give you an apropos example of why this makes me prefer leftist policies, i'll speak to my believe in universal/nationalized health care. i believe it has two effects: 1) it reduces the suffering of people who cannot otherwise afford health care, and 2) it enhances the freedom of the entire population when the entire population is healthy and productive (i.e., being healthy necessarily gives you more freedom than being sick).

yes, it is the case that the taxes used to pay for such policies count as a decrease in liberty. but to me, liberty is just one component of freedom. living in anarchy would certainly enhance my liberty, but there's clearly more to being free than simply not being bound by laws (or not having to pay taxes).

you probably disagree with my decision calculus, but at least be wise enough to note that my support of policies like these are not because i hate america or hate freedom or hate people or whatever other polemic you choose to throw at leftists. i have a decision calculus. it's probably not dissimilar from your own. i imagine you also value freedom and devalue suffering. we merely weigh the competing values differently.

[Lord Dave]

Tom... Jesus did not charge for curing people nor did it cost him anything.  It was literally free.

Now, answer the question.

What question?

Exactly which conservative views translate to religion again?

That one.

Your point was that free health care was better and the current system we want to keep is immoral.

Incorrect.  My EXAMPLE was that religious ideals are often not shown in conservative political views and platforms.

I am waiting to hear you show me examples of how they align.

[Tumeni]

If Dave, or you, want to argue for Free Health Care and how it is morally fair or better then you guys should probably address the fact that there are already socialized programs for the old and disabled and poor and explain how free-healthcare-for-all fixes anything, or gives us more health options.

The American Police have clearly spent millions on riot gear, less-lethal munitions, tear gas, flash bangs and pepper spray.

These things are being used to cause harm to the citizens who paid for them through taxation and other social contributions.

Wouldn't the USA be a better place if the money spent on those things was spent on caring for those who are sick, as opposed to simply brutalizing the healthy who speak out in protest?

I saw a post the other day from a US citizen whose wife has/had cancer. In less than five years, their medical bills had wiped out their life savings, forced a remortgage of the house, and a host of other privations that I cannot recall verbatim.

Wouldn't things be better if this did not happen?

[Tumeni]

What makes you think that Liberals are good? At least conservatives groups often point towards religion as their moral base. What do Liberals point to for their moral base?

Why is there a requirement to "point" to something external to political persuasion as a moral base, as opposed to letting common decency in thought and action be a guiding principle?

[Tom Bishop]

i think cruelty and suffering are the greatest moral evils. i think freedom and autonomy are the greatest moral goods. i do not require a separate/external moral authority to justify those axioms.

If you have your own moral code, how does it square with the fact that you are on the side of looters and thugs?

Why is there a requirement to "point" to something external to political persuasion as a moral base, as opposed to letting common decency in thought and action be a guiding principle?

Because you are on the side of rioters and extremism - modern liberalism. Conservatives aren't rioting. Conservatives didn't loot a mall In Chicago last night.

You have mostly been attacking the police rather than the liberal extremist movement. It would be interesting to know where you get this moral base of yours from. Were you raised that way?

Incorrect.  My EXAMPLE was that religious ideals are often not shown in conservative political views and platforms.

I am waiting to hear you show me examples of how they align.

Example: Conservatives are generally not rioting, and they generally do not riot. Liberals do that. Why is that?

[Lord Dave]

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

Also, why are you using 3 pictures from foreign nations to prove your point?  Liberals not rioting violently enough for you so you need to show other countries?

[Tom Bishop]

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

Also, why are you using 3 pictures from foreign nations to prove your point?  Liberals not rioting violently enough for you so you need to show other countries?

I don't see a difference. Liberals are generally the ones to riot in other countries too. Tunemi is a foreign liberal who vehemently attacks police on this forum rather than the rioters, as an example. He is clearly siding with one side.

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

People who are more likely to believe in religion are less likely to riot. See: This discussion of conservatives vs liberals.

[Roundy]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/trump-coronavirus-deaths-timeline.html

An exhaustive review of the series of actions (and inactions) Trump has taken over the course of the coronavirus crisis that have made him directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Americans.

[Rama Set]

Without casting moral judgement on rioters (I disagree with them), I think the most reasonable explanation for liberals rioting more is that they are more often in a position of trying to upset a fairly monolithic status quo. Same reason the American Revolution had to happen. Upsetting the status quo is extremely difficult. That being said extreme right wingers do also riot. A lot of times they wear police uniforms when they do it.

[Lord Dave]

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

Also, why are you using 3 pictures from foreign nations to prove your point?  Liberals not rioting violently enough for you so you need to show other countries?

I don't see a difference. Liberals are generally the ones to riot in other countries too. Tunemi is a foreign liberal who vehemently attacks police on this forum rather than the rioters, as an example. He is clearly siding with one side.

And yet you still chose three foreign images.  Its almost as tho you can't FIND images that support your claim in America.

Also, just curious: Would you consider the riots against a dictator to be liberals or conservatives?

Still waiting for the Religious link to Political views, Tom.

People who are more likely to believe in religion are less likely to riot. See: This discussion of conservatives vs liberals.

Thats conjecture, Tom.

Let me try one more time:
Please list the Christian values that are directly reflected in conservative political views (and list them please)

Failure to do so will result in me assuming none exist and that you have nothing but bias opinion.

[Tumeni]

(Tumeni said - "Why is there a requirement to "point" to something external to political persuasion as a moral base, as opposed to letting common decency in thought and action be a guiding principle?"

Because you are on the side of rioters and extremism

No, I'm not. I'm on the side of protesters exercising their right to free assembly and speech when over-militarised police brutalise them and suppress this.

You have mostly been attacking the police rather than the liberal extremist movement. It would be interesting to know where you get this moral base of yours from. Were you raised that way?

I have taken issue with the American police stepping over the mark in recent times, particularly since the death of George Floyd, but it can clearly be illustrated that this overstepping has been going on for years. As previously mentioned, one civil defence attorney has gathered over 800 instances of police brutality. Amnesty International have weighed in to criticise the American police. The New York Times, in partnership with experience professionals, has analysed the NYPD actions and found significant brutality therein. It's not just me. 

Name-calling the protesters as "liberal extremists" has no value beyond the name-calling. Nobody would take you seriously if you called them "big poopy pants protesters", so why should we take "liberal extremists" seriously? It's just petty name-calling.

Numerous protesters have been seriously injured by "less lethal" weaponry wielded by the police forces. Baton rounds and rubber bullets fired directly at them, at close range, when manufacturers CLEARLY specify that they should be discharged at a distance, and ideally at the ground between police and crowd. For feck's sake, one police force managed to blind a homeless man in a wheelchair with this stuff..... how can you not regard this as totally wrong?

[Tumeni]

Tom, one of the first videos that caught my eye in the initial BLM protests in New York City was taken from inside a commuter's car;

It showed a pedal cyclist crossing the street in front of the car, and an NYPD officer chasing after him, hitting him with a baton. He put up an arm to defend himself and tried to get away from the officer who was beating him, and two other officers arrived on the scene. To all intents and purposes, they simply joined in BECAUSE the first officer was beating the cyclist, and then the cyclist was trying to fend off THREE NYPD officers while still holding on to his cycle, and trying to get away.

No attempt was made to detain him, the prime motive seemed to be simply to deal out a beating to a member of the public.

Who's in the wrong here? Is the cyclist a "liberal extremist"? So what if he is? Does that mean he deserves a three-against-one beating from three guys with sticks?

[Tom Bishop]

If you can show an actual court conviction, I'll agree with you that the police man was probably bad.

Other than that it's nonsense. You just showed us limited information and told us to trust our gut about what happened. Police officers are in such a position that they do have plenty of legitimate reasons to do things that look like they are assaulting people or murdering people. So I trust my gut and think that the police officer probably isn't trying to hurt people for the fun of it, wants to keep his job, and there is probably something else we don't know.

Based on what we are learning about George Floyd, the more information we learn, the better opinion that can be created. Courts are designed to get all the facts to make a proper ruling, and those officers in the Floyd case will not likely be convicted of murder based on all the details.

And yet you still chose three foreign images.  Its almost as tho you can't FIND images that support your claim in America.

Actually those pictures accurately depicted the concept of thugs and looters. If I was talking about thievery I don't see why I would need to post a picture of an American thief to make a comment about thievery in America."That's actually a French thief!!" is only something you would say in an effort of distraction from being on the wrong side of a point. The fact that you can only attempt this argument rather than to explain why you are on the side of thugs and looters shows this.

Please list the Christian values that are directly reflected in conservative political views (and list them please)

Failure to do so will result in me assuming none exist and that you have nothing but bias opinion.

Irrelevant. I said that Conservatives are more likely to cite religion as their basis of their own morality. I didn't say anything about any specific political view. 'Smaller government' isn't in the Bible.

Political views may be, in part, based on morality, but that does not necessarily have anything to do with what the Bible says. The laws of Moses and biblical parables may just provide a guide that shaped their morality, rather than the Bible providing a quote reference for beliefs about how the government should be run.