| Blogs > > My Blog |
|
Member Deleted Post This post has been deleted by |
|||
|
Your post is extremely vague.......For instance, using the terms "real evil""lesser evil" and "made-up evils", "moral clarity" "something bad" "moral courage"......These are all subjective terminology. First you accuse "The Left" of claiming moral superiority, yet then you claim that you have moral superiority, because, according to this post you have moral courage, moral clarity and the ability to distinguish "real evil" from lesser evil........LOL.....I would think this was meant as satire if you haven't already proven beyond a doubt that you are incapable of understanding irony.........
| ||
|
Really.....You have a point?........The only point I see is Pointed Sanctimony.......Anyone who supports Trump and places themselves on a pedestal of moral superiority while accusing others of moral preening, is just a big joke......
| ||
|
And what, pray tell, are those made up evils that I'm so splendid at?......Your vague, vacuous terms have no meaning except, maybe to those who take courses at Prager "university"......LOL
| ||
|
It's seems you must get gratification for turning things on it's head...with the use of upside logic Prager hit's the nail on head, only because he's using YOUR hammer. Fake News, The Greater Evil, and Moral Clarity. Upside down logic. A devil's disciple trying to repossess, Truth, Good, and morality. To you, maybe, winning is everything, but to the rest of US...... We don't fight the battles we know we we're going to win..... We fight the battles that need to be fought. I don't want to speak for sparkle, but it seems to me you always condemn yourself by your condemnation of others...."The vacuity and vagueness reside in your words" A truth, maybe, in your own mind, but it has two sides..the other being in the eyes of the beholder.
| ||
|
Did a fight against a statue in a park need to be fought? yes, But you don't fight a statue with pigeon sh*t.
| ||
|
He may have "hit the nail on the head" but the nail is being driven into immaterial froth. It fastens nothing to nothing. It's a completely redundant nail. While Maisie is ranting on about moral preening over in her blog, you are over here defending outrageous moral preening .....The two of you should have a discussion....maybe over dinner.....might prove fruitful.......Maybe she could fill a blog with short, declarative sentences explaining what exactly the terms "real evil""lesser evil" and "made-up evils", "moral clarity" "something bad" "moral courage" mean......and why, when Dan brags that he has moral courage, moral clarity and the ability to distinguish "real evil" from lesser evil......it isn't Moral Preening?.... ....
| ||
|
There is fidelity to the First Amendment and there is interpretation. Since the First Amendment was adopted in a time when logistics were very different,it necessitates interpretation. Colin Kaepernick comes to mind....The way he chose to demonstrate his right to free speech certainly wasn't supported by the Right......as a matter of fact, the Right does not demonstrate fidelity to the First Amendment unless it agrees with their agenda.
| ||
|
It's obvious that you and Maisie don't discuss each other's blogs, or even read them, apparently. Maisie obsesses about "Moral Preening" from the Left over on her blogs and in your blog, you support the most outrageous Moral Preening from the Right. Obviously, "Moral Preening" , according to you, belongs to Republicans, is their exclusive territory.........Apparently you and Maisie actually don't care about these things that you rant about, but only do it because you think it pisses other people off...........Tells me a lot about the both of you.
| ||
|
LOL....Look whose talking......The person who posts judgemental rants every day........ Apparently, moral preening from the Right is acceptable........because, according to Dan's post he has moral courage, moral clarity and the ability to distinguish "real evil" from lesser evil, yet when I ask him to define these subjective, moralizing terms, he tells me that I'm immoral.....and you and Liszt both either don't recognize it as moral preening, or somehow think that "moral preening" can only come from the Left.............Isn't it ironic how the Right can't recognize this attitude when it comes from their own people........
| ||
|
Dear Tennessee Tag Team.........Once again, I will refer you back to page one of this blog, where Dan quotes and agrees with a quote by Dennis Prager.......that Dan agrees with, praises and extends. Liszt agrees with Dan about Prager's words. I keep trying to illustrate the virtue-signalling and moral preening that Prager wallows in and which Dan often does as well. You both seem to be blind to it because you have this idea engraved on your brain that it is "The Hallmark of the Left".....Apparently you have swallowed that KoolAid to the extent that you believe that the Right is incapable of it......to the extent that you are blind to it......... Prager says that only the Right can have moral clarity.......he says that you can't have moral clarity if you are on the Left..........according to this post only the Right is capable of moral courage, moral clarity and the ability to distinguish "real evil" from lesser evil........Now, instead of jumping to the conclusion that moral preening only comes from the Left, pay attention to what Prager is actually saying.
| ||
|
That what you say the left does is EXACTLY what you do. Moral Preening is your modus operendi.... of the ends justifying the means. of not moral clarity but moral choice. There has never more moral preening in this country than the defeat of Hillary. It has created a moral preening, beyond the scope of morality. Thump colluding, cooperating, or taking advantage of Russian election inference is ALL justifiable. It is simply morally correct because Hillary is now not the President. Moral clarity, is not clear at all... It's weighed against the truer evil. a truer evil that is not clear, but a choice. The only moral clarity to me. is that your use of morals is immoral. Moral clarity.....and "the greater evil"......do not conform. Just saying it is immoral. Moral aren't bounded by degrees of evil. Morals can not be bound, they are there or they are not. Moral clarity, is not about moral conflict. moral clarity has no conflict.
| ||
|
Wow!!!.......The reason I have posted so many comment here is not because Prager particularly got under my skin, but, I just wondered if you were capable of seeing anything at all beyond your tunnel........But, it's obviously not worth the effort.....At least you don't just go back to your earlier blogs and C+P paragraphs that you have filed under trigger words..........like your wife does... But really, you are no fun at all......You don't ever mention your Christian Faith, but you are obviously steeped in it, at least culturally. Is it just a Southern American thing?......The soup that Prager floats in....that Dan excretes through every sweating pore.......The assumptions of Evangelical Righteousness. This assumption of being on the side of Morality......this soup soup simmering on the Republican back burner that assumes virtuousness. Because it is the medium you live in, it' invisible to you. When Prager assumes "moral-clarity"......when he judges that "The Left" is incapable of it, when he claims to know a "greater evil" from a "lesser evil".......when he judges others from his pedestal that he assumes from a stack of Bibles, you and Dan and Maisie and his faithful readership don't see it as virtue-signalling, because you already have established a file under that heading and it is filed under "The Left." ........When I first accused him of virtue-signalling, your response was that it can't be true, because it's "The Left" who do that............
| ||
|
I don't bring up moral clarity.. you have. I do live in a fog......where up is down, evil is good, women are men, and dogs are cats. A fog of perspective, and no absolutes. I do believe from my perspective that., evil is good, women are men, and dogs are cats. I take exception to your narrow view. In your world of simplistic right or wrong. of definition, and substance.. In my world.... it's much more complicated than that. What is simplistic to me is my morals, no conflict, no need to spread the word. But since you have........ let me explain MY moral clarity.. The first thing that's clear about my morals is they are not universal. They are mine and mine alone. Second my moral clarity, has nothing to do with you, liberalism or conservatism. the color of a person skin...My moral clarity has no conflict I live according to my moral clarity....It's not complicated.. It's the most simplistic thing I know. I fully understand that MY moral clarity is the simplest thing for me, but to EVERYONE else... It's complicated. My word "salad". is not about moral clarity, as it's relates to this blog. You are welcome to any morals you choose. I am not disagreeing with your morals. But as I do, with everything else, and in regards to moral clarity. There is no room, in whatever morals you choose, for hypocrisy. That is what is in conflict with moral, that is what denies morals. My moral clarity.......I don't want to explain it to YOU. I don't need to explain to YOU.. It's mine and mine alone. Sparkle is right... although, you do not profess religious fanaticism. Although you claim to separate religion from politics.. The fact is... you not only conform to it, but use it. In a way, you are not like DAN. Dan is much more morally honest... You are just a self-serving moral hypocrite.
| ||
|
"although, you do not profess religious fanaticism. Although you claim to separate religion from politics.. The fact is... you not only conform to it, but use it" There are very few people who have not incorporated Christian moral values, into their own value. I have. But I don't incorporate them as a whole. Just a part of me.. I refuse to use the part i have incorporated to justify the whole. It's the reason we can never see eye to eye. You believe absolutely that up is up and down is down..I don't believe that. Do I believe, up is up and down is down....yes I do... but i don't believe it absolutely. My perspective is different than yours. You, in fact, can't deal with my perspective, but i can deal with yours. You need to have absolutes... it's the only way you can function. In regards to moral preening, Anybody Right or Left that tries to justify their particular morals, tries to impose their particular morals, is moral preening. This whole blog is about moral preening. If you ever could get off your high horse of absolutes You could understand that just being on your high horse is moral preening. All you have to do to believe in moral preening is to believe there is such a thing a "Greater Evil". From a moral standpoint there is only right and wrong, good and evil. One by creating a "greater evil", tries to reduce evil. morally it can't done . I have created a new word, that is no such word, but exemplifies you... You are just "wronger" Not even sparkle disagrees with the moral preening you're presenting.... She is just saying, although you negatively present others as moral preening...............you represent moral preening.
|
×
×