I'm trying not to be outraged, but...

[YmirGF]

With all due respect, I know that you don't actually believe that all morality is equal. Case in point, your past (and justified) criticism of Islamic morality. I doubt you would ever assert that it's equal to western secular morality.

I'm not suggesting it is equal. I'm stating more that one does not have the right to cram their sense of morality down the throats of others.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do they show endless re-runs of Pawn Stars there?

At the time, you can guess what they were
known for based upon its nickname....
The Hitler Channel.

 

[Quetzal]

At the time, you can guess what they were
known for based upon its nickname....
The Hitler Channel.

Ah yes, the good ol'days.

 

[wandering peacefully]

I agree that unfortunately, one must get involved in order to keep ones sanity or effect change. It's a real pia and involves irritating a lot folks who like the status quo. It's actually very scary at first when you start calling out those in power. But after you discover they won't come after you very easily, it becomes okay. The reason the big ticket items remain the same is because most people do not have the time or gumption to continually contact their representatives to let them know what it is they want from them. That's how the good old boy mentality remains the same. But with the oligarchy now firmly in place and in control, it is almost impossible to weed out the bad actors. The ones in power who do the bidding and are paid by the corporations to inact the policies which further their agendas and goals and profits.


That was too long of a response but the bottom line is , nothing will change without getting involved, unfortunately.


And my main gripe as of now is the attack on the environment and our national public lands by those in charge. It saddens me greatly. I do what I can but it is never enough. And of course, the moral discourse of our current "president". But that is obvious.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'm not suggesting it is equal. I'm stating more that one does not have the right to cram their sense of morality down the throats of others.

Who is doing is, and how? Could you elaborate? Offer an example?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I'm not suggesting it is equal. I'm stating more that one does not have the right to cram their sense of morality down the throats of others.

Just so long as you disapprove of it in both directions.

 

[YmirGF]

Who is doing is, and how? Could you elaborate? Offer an example?

I see it on both sides. I even had one poster admit recently that they did feel they had the moral high ground. I was amused by that notion.

Just so long as you disapprove of it in both directions.

Have no doubt, I am not keen on either side of the political spectrum getting too big for their britches.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If a third party becomes viable, sure. Until then, no thanks.

Oddly, most of the rest of the world deals in more than 2 parties. It only seems to be the US that feels obligated to have only 2, "this way or that way" or "left or right" or whatever. Everywhere else, we seem to be able to cope with nuance.

 

[Quetzal]

Oddly, most of the rest of the world deals in more than 2 parties. It only seems to be the US that feels obligated to have only 2, "this way or that way" or "left or right" or whatever. Everywhere else, we seem to be able to cope with nuance.

The issue isn't a lack of demand. The issue is a lack of money. Money buys influence, air time, and it fills auditoriums. We simply cannot expect other parties to be able to compete. I have said it once and I will say it again, as long as money is the driving factor in political candidates, you will get what we always have. Of course, the people in power are the ones with that same money so don't expect them to budge anytime soon.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The biggest problem with a two party system like the US has is that it simply doesn't allow for the full spectrum of the way people think. "Left" and "right" try to harness both an economic scale and a personal liberty scale into one. On the left, you want government involved in commerce (usually for protectionist and wealth redistribution reasons), along with letting everybody personally do what they'd like, make love how they'd like, have abortions, etc.. On the right, of course, you want no regulation of business, since "unfettered capitalism" is a kind of god, but you want people to all do the same sort of things in the same sort of ways, whether it's comfortable for them or not.

My political view turns that into a quadrant, left and right, up and down. On the left, I do want government to have some involvement in regulating business, if only to make rules about cheating, false advertising, monopoly avoidance, regulations regarding assets required to back and protect credit, and that sort of thing. So on the left right scale (-10 to +10) I'm about a -3. In terms of personal liberty (authoritarian at the top or plus side, libertarian at the bottom), well, I don't think the state has much business in my private life, even if I do decide I want to marry another man and allow others to make similar choices for themselves, again, I'm about a -3, because I still think we humans need some rules to live by.

Anybody who understands what I just wrote, will not be surprised to learn that here in Canada, I have, over the years, voted for 4 political parties. And so long as I'm able and enfranchised, will likely to continue doing that, based on the party's platforms, leadership, and who's running in my local.

Y'all should try it!

 

[Father Heathen]

Oddly, most of the rest of the world deals in more than 2 parties. It only seems to be the US that feels obligated to have only 2, "this way or that way" or "left or right" or whatever. Everywhere else, we seem to be able to cope with nuance.

Because apparently your average american needs everything watered down and spoon fed to them.

 

[Quagmire]

The world has become too outrageous for outrage.

 

[Father Heathen]

I see it on both sides. I even had one poster admit recently that they did feel they had the moral high ground. I was amused by that notion.

But again, what constitutes to you "cramming their sense of morality down the throats of others."? Give an example.

 

[Stevicus]

This is something of a spin-off thread from @Stevicus 's thread here - https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/moral-outrage-in-political-debates.210986/ ; I felt it might be nice to give folks a space to air their current political grievances. The intent of this thread isn't for us to debate each other, but just to let some of it out. What are some of the things going on right now that are really bothering you? Perhaps you wouldn't describe your feelings about it as outrage, but fear, or perhaps sadness?

I think what gives me the most outrage would be any kind of abuse of power, although it doesn't necessarily have to be political power. It can be economic power, too. Or even mental power - such as those who outsmart, con, or manipulate others for personal or political gain, such as the kind of people who swindle the elderly out of their life savings. Those kinds of people are among the lowest of the low, in the same category as child molesters (which also fills me with outrage, btw).

That may also be part of the reason I started the thread on moral outrage, since even moral outrage itself (when it seems false, disingenuous, or put on) can fill me with moral outrage. It's just another form of manipulation and con game of the kind which lawyers, politicians, and pundits are famous for. Any kind of falsity, hypocrisy, or other such chicanery - especially if it's done for personal, financial, or political gain - that's the kind of stuff that fills me with outrage.