The Sad But True Pictures Thread

[JettaKnight]

Of course never say never -- any group is bound to have a few lunatics. But I would characterize it as very rare on the right and commonplace on the left. That in itself says something.

Commonplace? No, skewed toward the left, yes.

Let's face it, there's a ton of left-leaning people who's antics don't show up on INGO. Is it the frequency bias? Is that what I'm thinking of?

They're not all riotous protestors and just like we're not all hate-mongering nazi's (like we're being called).


But, yeah, now the left are resorting to some really dirty tactics. Let's hope the right can take the high ground.

 

[IndyTom]

Someone posted a joke about a (Polish?) sniper not knowing what it felt like to kill a human since he'd only killed communists and this is the sort of thing that popped into my mind. I might be being a little hypocritical as a fan of the modern version of the joke (What do you feel? Recoil.), but the dehumanizing of the other side method (that the left are employing, now) has made it easier to do a lot of bad things over the course of history.

 

[BugI02]

Commonplace? No, skewed toward the left, yes.

Let's face it, there's a ton of left-leaning people who's antics don't show up on INGO. Is it the frequency bias? Is that what I'm thinking of?

They're not all riotous protestors and just like we're not all hate-mongering nazi's (like we're being called).


But, yeah, now the left are resorting to some really dirty tactics. Let's hope the right can take the high ground.

Fix bayonets? Too soon?

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[jamil]

I struggle to find the good done in Blue Laws. What good was done in the PATIOT act? FISA? Really? Democrats want to feel moral. Republicans, at least some, want to force their morals on others.

 

[Jerchap2]

I struggle to find the good done in Blue Laws. What good was done in the PATIOT act? FISA? Really? Democrats want to feel moral. Republicans, at least some, want to force their morals on others.

Well, it is a generality, there are always exceptions in both people and laws. But I would differ about Democrats wanting to feel moral -- instead they want to force their immorality on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

 

[jamil]

Well, it is a generality, there are always exceptions in both people and laws. But I would differ about Democrats wanting to feel moral -- instead they want to force their immorality on the rest of us whether we like it or not.

Well, sure. I know several that do. I also know several social conservatives who want to make laws which enforce their version of morality. So I guess the point is, both sides do it, at least some on both sides. One difference. It’s the Republican side which libertarians find the most welcoming.

 

[Jerchap2]

I guess this fits here as well as anywhere. Note it is an accurate paraphrase, not a direct quote, hence no quote marks:

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I struggle to find the good done in Blue Laws. What good was done in the PATIOT act? FISA? Really? Democrats want to feel moral. Republicans, at least some, want to force their morals on others.

Everybody wants to force their morals on society. It's not the province of the republicans.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Well, sure. I know several that do. I also know several social conservatives who want to make laws which enforce their version of morality. So I guess the point is, both sides do it, at least some on both sides. One difference. It’s the Republican side which libertarians find the most welcoming.

Just a PSA: EVERY law passed is enforcing someone's view of morality. The crucial issue is whose view of morality will be enforced? Certain groups want to force all US citizens to accept and endorse same sex marriage. Others want to limit marriage to opposite genders. BOTH are trying to force their morality on the other. The same can be said for bank robbery, abortion, perjury, definitions of language and terms (e.g. what is the meaning of "is"? Fetus or baby? etc.), divorce, polygamy/polyandry, hate crimes, and the list goes on.

One of the strengths of this nation from the beginning was its common perspective on which view of morality to enforce. Christianity was the dominant choice, but freedom was granted to other religions to function within the context of basic Christian morality. Human sacrifice was unacceptable, for instance, but if one wanted to follow Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. one was free to do so. However, the oppression of women common to Islam (sex slavery as spoils of war, concubinage, wife-beating, forced female circumcision, etc.), or example, was forbidden. As with every religion or moral code, there were problems, excesses, and inanities in application. Today, with the absence of a commonly accepted moral code, life is much more challenging.

 

[2A_Tom]

Everybody wants to force their morals on society. It's not the province of the republicans.

Just a PSA: EVERY law passed is enforcing someone's view of morality. The crucial issue is whose view of morality will be enforced? Certain groups want to force all US citizens to accept and endorse same sex marriage. Others want to limit marriage to opposite genders. BOTH are trying to force their morality on the other. The same can be said for bank robbery, abortion, perjury, definitions of language and terms (e.g. what is the meaning of "is"? Fetus or baby? etc.), divorce, polygamy/polyandry, hate crimes, and the list goes on.

One of the strengths of this nation from the beginning was its common perspective on which view of morality to enforce. Christianity was the dominant choice, but freedom was granted to other religions to function within the context of basic Christian morality. Human sacrifice was unacceptable, for instance, but if one wanted to follow Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. one was free to do so. However, the oppression of women common to Islam (sex slavery as spoils of war, concubinage, wife-beating, forced female circumcision, etc.), or example, was forbidden. As with every religion or moral code, there were problems, excesses, and inanities in application. Today, with the absence of a commonly accepted moral code, life is much more challenging.

Christianity wants to keep everyone from having sex out side of marriage to someone of the opposite sex. To keep people from ruining their lives with booze and drugs. To keep people from defrauding each other. Horror of horrors they want to keep people from killing one and other.

We need to make Christianity illegal!

 

[jamil]

Just a PSA: EVERY law passed is enforcing someone's view of morality. The crucial issue is whose view of morality will be enforced? Certain groups want to force all US citizens to accept and endorse same sex marriage. Others want to limit marriage to opposite genders. BOTH are trying to force their morality on the other. The same can be said for bank robbery, abortion, perjury, definitions of language and terms (e.g. what is the meaning of "is"? Fetus or baby? etc.), divorce, polygamy/polyandry, hate crimes, and the list goes on.

One of the strengths of this nation from the beginning was its common perspective on which view of morality to enforce. Christianity was the dominant choice, but freedom was granted to other religions to function within the context of basic Christian morality. Human sacrifice was unacceptable, for instance, but if one wanted to follow Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. one was free to do so. However, the oppression of women common to Islam (sex slavery as spoils of war, concubinage, wife-beating, forced female circumcision, etc.), or example, was forbidden. As with every religion or moral code, there were problems, excesses, and inanities in application. Today, with the absence of a commonly accepted moral code, life is much more challenging.

Yes and no. Morality is generally subjective, but there are objective morals, too. Murder, we could say is one of those, the unjust killing of another human being. Just about all societies against it. No one thinks that murder laws are forced on society by a majority group. No one wants to vote out the anti-murder lobby, because everyone is against murder. You might bring bring up abortion as a counterexample, but the tribal disagreement there is about whether abortion IS murder, not IF there should be laws against murder.

Religion is unnecessary for a functioning society to figure out that murder should be illegal. We didn't discover the moral fact that murder is wrong because of Christianity. Christianity discovered it along with the other religions. But, I'm not going to say that Christianity had no impact on the discovery of other objective moral facts in our society. One can say that the discovery of individual liberty as a moral fact stems from the Judaeo-Christian line of social evolution. No matter how we got to that point, it's a moral fact, and would likely have been discovered eventually.

But, if you want to say that all morality is dependent on individual's view of morality, that it just comes down to whose moral virtues you prefer to enforce, then you're making the same argument as moral relativists. I'm a moral realist, not a moral relativist. Of course groups can arm wrestle over the power to inflict their subjective morals on the rest of society. I think the founders came up with a reasonable way to deal with moral facts vs subjective morality. It's an idea that we could distill down to a principle, that the federal government should be constrained from enforcing subjective moral values, and only have the power to enforce objective moral values. Let the states decide which subjective morality they want to enforce, in a sort of marketplace of moral ideas.

 

[jamil]

Christianity wants to keep everyone from having sex out side of marriage to someone of the opposite sex. To keep people from ruining their lives with booze and drugs. To keep people from defrauding each other. Horror of horrors they want to keep people from killing one and other.

We need to make Christianity illegal!

No, it doesn't. In terms of morality, Christianity is an individual mandate to follow Christ, and to help lead others to follow. There is no mandate to force others to follow. Rather than Christians deciding to impose their morals on non-believers, render to Caesar what is Caesar's. It's not Caesar's mandate to tell people who they can have sex with. But fraud is objectively immoral. Laws against fraud are justified regardless of religious belief.

 

[Doug]

In an attempt to get us back to images...

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I dunno, the Samsung one is still slightly realistic.

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[Jerchap2]

 

[JettaKnight]

I house with stupid shutters like that? No thanks.

 

[2A_Tom]

Actually, I am impressed that they hanged them correctly. I have installed many of them the wrong way... under orders.