u.s. politics: molotov cocktail through the overton window

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I never said, nor did I mean, nor do I believe that it is impossible for an atheist to be a moral person.

Ok, so you're simply playing devil's advocate, explaining to us what others think. That's kinda cool.
I will therefore apologize for assuming that the position you were detailing was really yours. You are right to remind me (as I like to do myself) that explaining is not necessarily condoning.
Needless to say, my point about "faith as a choice" nonetheless stands. If one "chooses" to base their morality exclusively on faith to the point where one assumes that anyone not sharing their religion (or faith generally speaking) is immoral... They are basically rejecting the most elementary precepts of logic and choosing irrationality as a "way of life" -so to speak.
That's bloody scary.
It's actually far less scary to assume that most people taking such a position do so because of their education/indoctrination as well as their environment and traditions.
This leaves some hope for humanity.
And to be clear: I don't think faith is a bad thing per se (quite the contrary), I simply think it should have little to no bearing on important decisions (like who you vote for) and that advocating such influence of religion in public life is profoundly wrong..
The tendency of some people to say that "they have a right to choose to believe in whatever they want" deeply irritates me. Yes, one has the "right" to reject logic and facts and act like a moron ; I therefore reserve the right to disrespect this kind of thinking.
As I was reading what you wrote, I thought that's what you were engaging in. Since this was not the case, I owe you an apology.

[Shryke]

5 hours ago, Kalbear said:

No, medicare-for-all does not need to be. That is one implementation of one form of universal health care, and it is not remotely clear that it is the best solution for the US.

The problem I have with Sanders doing this is that he is using it as a litmus test for progressives, and that's hugely flawed for a number of reasons - the biggest one being that his plan fucking sucks ass. And supporting a shitty plan because you're behind the basic logic of its need is not a good idea on many levels, the biggest of which is that the smart people will not support you. Colorado's single payer program lost 80-20 because it did things like remove abortion coverage, they couldn't figure out how to pay for it and it came up with this bizarre version of voting that could cause some Colorado residents to not be able to vote for it. 

I support - and continue to support - universal health care coverage in the US. It remains one of the best predictors of social welfare in the world, it remains the single most important safety net that people have, it is a great balancer for mobility, and it is morally absolutely correct. Don't make it a litmus test to support Sanders and his poorly thought out, aspirational plan full of holes and bullshit. 

Yeah, the goal is UHC (and cost control and a few other things), not single-payer. Single-payer is a way to get there but it's not the only way and Sanders' version of it does not even seem to be that good a way to do it.

I think in general it's good that he's pushing this stuff because it shifts the overton window on the healthcare reform conversation. The problem is when people seem to think it should be more then that and try and turn it into a purity test. Which is a bad idea on multiple levels.

[Kalbear]

7 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

If he relies only on his own judgment, and not any sense of duty, than sure.  He is an autocrat, or at least a would-be autocrat, beholden only to himself.  I see no sane reason why any leader should believe he is bound or beholden by those below him, if he does not believe he is bound by some moral authority that stands above him.

So by saying 'you see no sane reason why any leader should believe they are bound or beholden', you're not saying that atheists can't be moral? The only charitable way I can interpret this is that only insane people would believe that someone not beholden to a higher power can be moral. Care to explain?

 

[Rippounet]

You're funny.

Voltaire was not an atheist though. He was anti-religious, or to be more specific, as we would tend to say in his country, "anti-clerical" (the two being slightly different, and Voltaire being the later rather than the former).

4 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

It seems to me this paragraph is based on the assumption that the non-existence of some higher power, supporting the validity of moral belief, is a proven fact.   

Nope, on the assumption that the existence of a higher power (to support moral belief) is an unprovable fact. I therefore regard agnostic theism as a perfectly valid and logical idea. Slightly more logical, in some respects and in my humble opinion, than atheism.

I believe Voltaire did as well. Nevertheless, it seems he himself remained a theist rather than an agnostic.

[LongRider]

Oh man, Kelly is so acting like the adult in the room!  Meanwhile, lowlife Repug. Congress Critter from Calif tries to make a deal and hits a dealbreaker.  John Kelly don't play selling out the US to slime like Assange.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918

Quote

 

WASHINGTON—A U.S. congressman contacted the White House this week trying to broker a deal that would end WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s U.S. legal troubles in exchange for what he described as evidence that Russia wasn’t the source of hacked emails published by the antisecrecy website during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The proposal made by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.), in a phone call Wednesday with White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, was apparently aimed at resolving the probe of WikiLeaks prompted by Mr. Assange’s publication of secret U.S. government documents in 2010 through a pardon or other act of clemency from President Donald Trump.

The possible “deal”—a term used by Mr. Rohrabacher during the Wednesday phone call—would involve a pardon of Mr. Assange or “something like that,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. In exchange, Mr. Assange would probably present a computer drive or other data-storage device that Mr. Rohrabacher said would exonerate Russia in the long-running controversy about who was the source of hacked and stolen material aimed at embarrassing the Democratic Party during the 2016 election........................................A Trump administration official confirmed Friday that Mr. Rohrabacher spoke to Mr. Kelly about the plan involving Mr. Assange. Mr. Kelly told the congressman that the proposal “was best directed to the intelligence community,” the official said.  [oh snap!]  Mr. Kelly didn’t make the president aware of Mr. Rohrabacher’s message, and Mr. Trump doesn’t know the details of the proposed deal, the official said........................................................................

In the call with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Rohrabacher pushed for a meeting between Mr. Assange and a representative of Mr. Trump, preferably someone with direct communication with the president.

“I would be happy to go with somebody you trust whether it is somebody at the FBI; somebody on your staff,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. The California congressman said he would be pleased to talk to CIA Director Mike Pompeo, but that the agency “has its limitations” and wanted “to cover their butt by having gone along with this big lie.”   [dear, dear Congrssman, your begging is so hilarious demeaning] The CIA was one of the intelligence agencies that helped determine in January that emails from prominent Democrats were stolen by Russian intelligence and given to WikiLeaks.

 

 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

A person can choose to behave however he wants, regardless of whether his is bound or beholden.

Except you just said you see no sane reason why they would believe they should. 

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

 In fact, atheists argue that this is what makes their morality superior.  They behave decently because they choose to do do, motivated by their own inherent goodness (or something), and not because they believe they are bound and beholden.

Of course, even so, I probably should have said something "philosophically consistent" instead of "sane".  But sometimes one is tempted to take a shortcut instead of writing a huge number of syllables.

Shockingly this doesn't make the difference particularly good.

3 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Also, my saying I cannot think of a reason, does not mean that no reason exists that I have not thought of.  I'm not an expert on anyone's philosophy but my own. 

Do you not see how this implies that you do not believe it can happen? And then you criticize others for thinking that's what you claimed, when...that was what you claimed?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Fuck. Here we go again. 

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

"should" was not the word I used, nor was it the word I meant.

You said, again: 'you see no sane reason why any leader should believe they are bound or beholden'

That's your words, not mine.Emphasis was added.

Want to try that again?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Lew Theobald said:

Okay.  Why cut short the sentence if not to create misunderstanding?

I was not saying "should be moral".

Quote

I see no sane reason why any leader should believe he is bound or beholden by those below him, if he does not believe he is bound by some moral authority that stands above him.

I cut the sentence short because the latter part didn't add anything. I quoted the whole thing, after all.

Want to try that a fourth time? Because this reads entirely as 'if they don't believe they are bound by something greater than they are, they cannot believe they are bound by anything below them', and the implication is entirely that they would either have to be insane to do so, or that they can not. 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

7 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

... should believe themselves bound and beholden.  Why cut short the sentence?

Why would any sane elected official (in an actual democracy) not feel beholden to his or her constituency? 

[DMC]

8 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

That is why the enlightenment philosophers who inspired our Constitution, wisely instituted a system of checks and balances, to ensure that all these would-be autocrats fail in their ambition to abuse their power, not because they don't want to, but because they can't.  Still, the system is not perfect, and the potential for a breakdown of the system, and the arrival of tyranny always exists.

Quote

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

You're right that checks and balances were instituted (based much more on Montesquieu than Voltaire) to curb the potential for tyranny.  You're wrong that the Framers thought god would ever be this check.  Madison did wax poetic about the "virtue" of those that would likely be representatives in some of the lesser known Federalist Papers, but this is not reflected in constitutional design.

9 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

So, even though a candidate's claim to be religious can be dismissed as all-but meaningless in most cases, there is no good reason why any atheist candidate for public office should actually admit that he is an atheist, to the public to whom he is pretending to make a binding promise to be their servant.  Why admit it that he believes that nothing actually binds him?  Who's going to punish him for lying?  God? 

In response to your last questions, these seem rather odd things to ask immediately after a paragraph outlining the role of check and balances.  As for the rest, your argument seems to boil down to atheist candidates shouldn't admit it publicly because the electorate will have a problem with it.  Which was pretty much the discussion we were having in the first place.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Dunno.  You tell me.

Well, if he or she expects to be re-elected...

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

5 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

... he will never, ever, ever abuse the public trust.  Your argument proves too much.

No, those two things aren't mutually exclusive. He or she can abuse the fuck out of the public trust and still pander to their base constituency that got them elected. They are still bound to their base though.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

Until the checks and balances break down and they seize absolute power.  Which could happen.

But even if that doesn't happen, it still makes a difference who we elect.   A public servant who abuses the public trust, is still analogous to Voltaire's servant who steals Voltaire's silverware.

But if he or she steals from their base, they won't be re-elected. They are bound to their base, at the very least. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Lew Theobald said:

I don't recall ever having expressed such an opinion.

 

9 hours ago, Lew Theobald said:

If he relies only on his own judgment, and not any sense of duty, than sure.  He is an autocrat, or at least a would-be autocrat, beholden only to himself.  I see no sane reason why any leader should believe he is bound or beholden by those below him, if he does not believe he is bound by some moral authority that stands above him.

[....]

The problem with public servants is that they lie.  So even though most of them are probably atheists, beholden only to themselves, they all pretend to believe they are servants of the public, beholden to the public, and answerable to a higher authority if they fail in their duties.

That is why the enlightenment philosophers who inspired our Constitution, wisely instituted a system of checks and balances, to ensure that all these would-be autocrats fail in their ambition to abuse their power, not because they don't want to, but because they can't.  Still, the system is not perfect, and the potential for a breakdown of the system, and the arrival of tyranny always exists.

The implication of argument is pretty damn clear.  But if you just wanna play your usual semantics game you're not worth my time.

In general, the notion that belief in god on behalf of governing leaders is rooted in Enlightenment thought is ludicrously ass-backwards.  The entire basis of the Enlightenment was an argument against the divine right of kings - which is precisely the mechanism that enabled them to be autocrats.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Nasty LongRider said:

Oh man, Kelly is so acting like the adult in the room!  Meanwhile, lowlife Repug. Congress Critter from Calif tries to make a deal and hits a dealbreaker.  John Kelly don't play selling out the US to slime like Assange.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-congressman-sought-trump-deal-on-wikileaks-russia-1505509918

 

Lol, of course it was Rohrabacher. His Russian handlers must have asked.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Lol, of course it was Rohrabacher. His Russian handlers must have asked.

Yeah if Rohrabacher was a MC during the McCarthy era he'd at least be in jail at this point.

[LongRider]

17 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah if Rohrabacher was a MC during the McCarthy era he'd at least be in jail at this point.

What does 'MC' stand for?  

[DMC]

Just now, Nasty LongRider said:

What does 'MC' stand for?  

Member of Congress.  Sorry, so used to using it as shorthand from composing powerpoint slides for teaching.

[LongRider]

Just now, dmc515 said:

Member of Congress.  Sorry, so used to using it as shorthand from composing powerpoint slides for teaching.

Ah, that makes sense.  Thanks.