Zaac
Well-Known Member
Nope. Since we're now getting specious, I typed it and posed the question.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Bernie Supporters
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Hmm,
Jesus used this kind of an answer in a similar "specious" question.
Mark 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.
HankD
Zaac
Well-Known Member
You are wasting your time, unlike:
Choosing between Hillary and Trump is not moral relativism. It is situational ethics, when you have to choose between two (or more) options but it is not a matter of thinking there is no such thing as absolute good and absolute evil.
Pregnancy by rape is a good example of situational ethics - any choice is unacceptable on the surface but a choice does have to be made, why this is a better example of situational ethics than voting Clinton or Trump. You could advert the latter by simply not voting.
Choosing between Hillary and Trump is not moral relativism. It is situational ethics, when you have to choose between two (or more) options but it is not a matter of thinking there is no such thing as absolute good and absolute evil.
Pregnancy by rape is a good example of situational ethics - any choice is unacceptable on the surface but a choice does have to be made, why this is a better example of situational ethics than voting Clinton or Trump. You could advert the latter by simply not voting.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Jesus never went against Himself.Not necessarily but I am using his technique.
HankD
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Funny cause you're not imitating or duplicating it with YOUR comments.[emoji38]
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
Well, Yaac, do you have no more yaacing a out this one?
Well, it was the first post in the series when in effect I said "Thou sayest it".Funny cause you're not imitating or duplicating it with YOUR comments.
Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk
HankD
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Yeah, if you're boiling it down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. it IS a moral relativistic situation, but doing so (or not) is not practicing moral relativism, it's a response involving situational ethics
What I mean is, I think Hillary voters are more inclined to embrace moral relativism, just because her party skews more that way (pro-choice, multiculturalism, egalitarianism) than Trump's does but voting Hillary doesn't necessarily mean you proscribe to moral relativism. And voting for Trump isn't a vote for moral absolution, since the guy is flawed morally, as is Hillary. He's evil, she's evil (fallen) but acknowledging that fact is agreeing that there is such a thing as good and evil and only the absolutionists do that,
And since voting is a right, claiming somebody who doesn't vote doesn't count makes as much sense as saying people who don't own guns don't have 2A rights or people who don't speak out in public don't have 1A rights - not voting is in itself an option of situational ethics and NOT moral relativism, because not voting is agreeing that there is evil and only evil on the ballot and therefore there is good.
On second thought, just forget it, lol.
What I mean is, I think Hillary voters are more inclined to embrace moral relativism, just because her party skews more that way (pro-choice, multiculturalism, egalitarianism) than Trump's does but voting Hillary doesn't necessarily mean you proscribe to moral relativism. And voting for Trump isn't a vote for moral absolution, since the guy is flawed morally, as is Hillary. He's evil, she's evil (fallen) but acknowledging that fact is agreeing that there is such a thing as good and evil and only the absolutionists do that,
And since voting is a right, claiming somebody who doesn't vote doesn't count makes as much sense as saying people who don't own guns don't have 2A rights or people who don't speak out in public don't have 1A rights - not voting is in itself an option of situational ethics and NOT moral relativism, because not voting is agreeing that there is evil and only evil on the ballot and therefore there is good.
On second thought, just forget it, lol.
This post is getting way off the OP!
It is NOT about the lesser of 2 evils
It is not about other political parties
It is not about taxes
Who do you think that Bernie supporters will generally vote for?
What is your favorite card game?
Okay, there's a slew of Bernie supporters around here, and it seems like the staunch Democrats (about 60%) are going for Hillary but they're still not so happy about it. The others are split between staying home or going for Trump or third party.
Looks different across the generations - millennials are going to mostly stay home or go third party, gen x is going for one of the two major candidates, and the boomers are going Hillary - the "establishment" attraction seems to increase with age around here,
Looks different across the generations - millennials are going to mostly stay home or go third party, gen x is going for one of the two major candidates, and the boomers are going Hillary - the "establishment" attraction seems to increase with age around here,
I'd hazard if they were to bolt Mrs. Rodham-Clinton, they'd go Green like what happened with Nader.