Okay, so it sounds like part of what you are saying here is that someone's act can only be evil if they were able to do otherwise than they did in fact do. You don't believe Hitler could have acted otherwise, therefore you wouldn't call him evil. — Leontiskos

Yes to your second interpretation, but "can only be evil if they were able to do otherwise than they did in fact do" is how i perceive the more common perceptions of good/evil, i'm sure my interpretation is both true and false in that regard...

This is because but-for causation casts a wide net. We would not want to conclude that knives are evil from the claim, "But for the knife, he would not have murdered." Nevertheless, what I think your argument does demonstrate is that thoughts constitute an important causal aspect of acts. — Leontiskos

The seem to constitute the origin of acts. As I laid out, plenty of horrid acts are not motivated by something bad. But some decent acts are. We can't quite make that work unless the thought it was made the act wrong by virtue of its intention. I don't know how strongly I want to argue this, but that seems the case to me.

1) why is it good when you convince someone to agree with you — Leontiskos

It makes me feel good (emotivism). Again, hard to explain that - but I think this answers the question you're asking. The 'why' is kind of a private, for-me thing to figure out and that's the semantic system I alluded to earlier.

2) why would you try to get other people to assent to your reasoning if moral issues are not susceptible to rational assent? — Leontiskos

To feel better.

If you don't think moral positions are susceptible to rational inquiry, then I don't understand why you would try to rationally persuade another person to adopt your own moral position. — Leontiskos

This is what I was getting at earlier - I don't. I try to get them to understand my reasoning. They might still morally disagree, but accept that, perhaps their act is likely to land them in prison, and so resile. That would be a result for me. Sometimes its fun to try to put the moral argument ot people, but its make me personally uncomfortable as I don't feel I have the right. These discussions are where I get most of my 'talk' out in the moral realm. It should also be clear that I only ever try to get people to either act or not act. I don't care much what their moral position is. I just either want A to happen, or A to not happen. I want them to do that. Not accept why I'm uncomfortable as their reason to do so (well, sometimes that's the case - my wife often does or doesn't do things for my comfort and vice verse but we share morality in that way so sort of moot).

The seem to constitute the origin of acts. — AmadeusD

True, but I think you need something more than but-for reasoning to establish such a thesis.

It makes me feel good (emotivism). Again, hard to explain that - but I think this answers the question you're asking. — AmadeusD

Okay.

This is what I was getting at earlier - I don't. I try to get them to understand my reasoning. They might still morally disagree, but accept that, perhaps their act is likely to land them in prison, and so resile. That would be a result for me. Sometimes its fun to try to put the moral argument ot people, but its make me personally uncomfortable as I don't feel I have the right. These discussions are where I get most of my 'talk' out in the moral realm. It should also be clear that I only ever try to get people to either act or not act. I don't care much what their moral position is. — AmadeusD

I feel as if you're trying to hold back the tide with a sand castle. The water creeps in at every point, and therefore so many different questions pop up:

• Why does it make you feel good to convince others to do something that is not rational to do?
• Why do you want them to understand your reasoning?
• Why would that be a (good) result for you?
• Why is it fun to put the moral argument to people?
• Why do you try to get people to act?

Each answer you give makes three more questions pop up like weeds.

Part of the crux is that every reflective person cares about the way that other people act, given that we are social beings who live in social arrangements. So I don't think a move like, "I just don't care what other people do" holds water (whether or not you have been claiming that per se). Now take a second premise: coercion is generally inappropriate (or immoral, if you like). With those two premises in hand, obviously we would like to be able to use rational persuasion in the moral sphere, because it would allow us to influence the actions of others without coercing them.

I don't know if you disagree with much of that? Perhaps you would just say that moral persuasion would be nice but it is not possible?

Neither do I see him as xenophobic — AmadeusD

I've scratched my head over this one a bit...

So do you mean that Donald Trump is just saying/doing that anti-immigrant stuff to placate voters and grasp at power? He's certainly after both of those things, but he has been complaining about Chinese people and Latin Americans for years, i just don't buy into the perception that he doesn't believe his own xenophobia and/or racism.

True, but I think you need something more than but-for reasoning to establish such a thesis. — Leontiskos

I don't think so myself.

I feel as if you're trying to hold back the tide with a sand castle. The water creeps in at every point, and therefore so many different questions pop up: — Leontiskos

There are no questions popping up for one who understands the position. The answer to all of them:
It makes me morally comfortable. However, your first bullet point is, I think, absurd. I said I would use explicitly rationality to try to get people to act in certain ways, rather htan moral reasoning. I am quite sure I fail constantly, lol.

Part of the crux is that every reflective person cares about the way that other people act, given that we are social beings who live in social arrangements. So I don't think a move like, "I just don't care what other people do" holds water (whether or not you have been claiming that per se). Now take a second premise: coercion is generally inappropriate (or immoral, if you like). With those two premises in hand, obviously we would like to be able to use rational persuasion in the moral sphere, because it would allow us to influence the actions of others without coercing them.

I don't know if you disagree with much of that? — Leontiskos

Yeah pretty much all of it. Inappropriate doesn't say 'wrong' to me.

So do you mean that Donald Trump is just saying/doing that anti-immigrant stuff to placate voters and grasp at power? He's certainly after both of those things, but he has been complaining about Chinese people and Latin Americans for years, i just don't buy into the perception that he doesn't believe his own xenophobia and/or racism. — ProtagoranSocratist

I would need to see something you think its 'xenophobic' rather than enforcing reasonable immigration laws (no comments (yet) on enforcement tactics). You say 'hes been complaining about'. I don't quite know what you're talking about yet, so I'll wait for examples.

I would need to see something you think its 'xenophobic' rather than enforcing reasonable immigration laws (no comments (yet) on enforcement tactics). You say 'hes been complaining about'. I don't quite know what you're talking about yet, so I'll wait for examples. — AmadeusD

Okay so i see it's because you agree with his immigration policies, so i'll just leave it at that as i don't think we'll get anywhere if i try to argue about this with you.

You'll need to explain why those policies (which are standard US immigration polices, enforced most harshly by Obama) are 'xenophobic'.

It seems to me that would be an unavailable argument. But I would be fine hearing why I'm wrong. I suggest that copping out in the way you have is essentially ignoring the question. Which isn't about Trump. It's about how you get to 'xenophobic' with any given data (i.e speech, acts, policies etc..).

You're more than welcome to the cop out. I am not trying to goad you, but letting this slide on the grounds of 'we're talking past each other' is not tenable.

You'll need to explain why those policies (which are standard US immigration polices, enforced most harshly by Obama) are 'xenophobic'.

It seems to me that would be an unavailable argument. But I would be fine hearing why I'm wrong. I suggest that copping out in the way you have is essentially ignoring the question. Which isn't about Trump. It's about how you get to 'xenophobic' with any given data (i.e speech, acts, policies etc..). — AmadeusD

alright, put that way, i think i can explain what i mean: the immigration policies by Obama and Biden are also xenophobic, but the official campaign rhetoric with liberal presidents tends to be less so. I also found that Biden acting against tiktok was also xenophobic and i personally thought it was just stupid and divisive...my understanding of the word is that it either means fear of outside influence or foreigners, this is the etymn online deconstruction:

xeno- "foreign, strange" + -phobia "fear."

borders themselves are also xenophobic, Trump just makes people describing him as such easy just because his over-simplifications and dishonesty about immigrants themselves obviously appeals to a fear of immigrants. "They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs...", he has made it easy for people to call him xenophobic, and i see no issue with calling a spade a spade.

Overall, i find such notions to be unfounded because clearly more predatory and criminal activity is committed by people who are already living in the country.

alright, put that way, i think i can explain what i mean: the immigration policies by Obama and Biden are also xenophobic, but the official campaign rhetoric with liberal presidents tends to be less so. I also found that Biden acting against tiktok was also xenophobic and i personally thought it was just stupid and divisive...my understanding of the word is that it either means fear of outside influence or foreigners, this is the etymn online deconstruction: — ProtagoranSocratist

Hmm, ok, cool thank you. That's hugely clarifying.

Is your issue that there are secure borders? I 'm not trying to corner you there; I take 'secure' to mean enforced as per immigration laws. I guess I'm wondering where in that there xenophobia comes from - and I'm having to take it back to the fact that entrants must be legal? I assume that's wrong, so would appreciate correction.

borders themselves are also xenophobic — ProtagoranSocratist

This is key, so thank you. We do not have any common ground here. This now says all we need in terms of disagreement, but the discussion is fun anyway to me.

Overall, i find such notions to be unfounded because clearly more predatory and criminal activity is committed by people who are already living in the country. — ProtagoranSocratist

That's fair. But if there is a policy which would prevent X type of offence being committed (or offences by X group), I want that policy (generally). And if that policy is simply enforcing existing laws, I can't complain about it. We do not have males in female spaces largely because that group commits certain crimes. Not all, not even most. A sliver, at best. But we stil have that policy and enforce it heartily. Most people just do it. Not illegally entering a country should be the same.

For me, the issue was that a huge swathe of hte public decided to rally to prevent the enforcement of existing laws and that was for decades. Despite the policies of Obama and Biden. I absolutely agree the rhetoric and political delivery is softer in those administrations - Im unsure that's good. As noted though, if this goes back to borders being 'xenophobic', I cannot understand that and we're good :) lol

borders themselves are also xenophobic — ProtagoranSocratist

Hello PS,

What we are seeing globally in terms of immigration is vastly different than what was happening even 5-10 years ago. Here in Canada, hundreds of thousands of immigrants whose visas have expired have simply disappeared, expected to self-deport.

Huge processing backlogs are costing governments millions to store newcomers in hotels, worldwide. Certain demographic groups are committing a vastly higher percentage of certain kinds of crimes - witness the decades-long grooming gang scandal in England.

Do you honestly think an open-border policy that is happy to absorb, say, thousands of unattached young men fleeing conflict and war is going to have no negative impacts on a nation?

I agree Trump makes it 'easy' for people to view him as xenophobic, but don't think borders are xenophobic. This stance seems wildly naive, given the increasingly globalized nature of human life, and the pervasiveness of tech which further shrinks the distance from one place to another.

Not to mention the fact that many immigrants who use legal channels find the open-borders stance, or the civil-disobedience stance, noxious.

Is your issue that there are secure borders? I 'm not trying to corner you there; I take 'secure' to mean enforced as per immigration laws. I guess I'm wondering where in that there xenophobia comes from - and I'm having to take it back to the fact that entrants must be legal? I assume that's wrong, so would appreciate correction. — AmadeusD

this is something i actually think about a lot, and i haven't come to any absolute conclusions: i think borders, national identity, race, and gender all contribute to confusion when it comes to just doing basic things during the day. I understand that these concepts exist for various reasons, and doing away with them entirely is impossible and doesn't have any clear benefits...but it doesn't have to mean i like them.

With borders, i would prefer it if i didn't have to carry around a passport when traveling, or show identity to authority figures, but i can fully admit that i don't know how it would be possible to get rid of borders to everyone's satisfaction. I also don't think it really makes any sense to morally judge someone who violates a country's immigration laws if they are only trying to improve their situation peacefully. There are ways to immigrate to the united states legally, but clearly a lot of illegal immigrants are not able to complete those procedures, or don't know how.

Huge processing backlogs are costing governments millions to store newcomers in hotels, worldwide. Certain demographic groups are committing a vastly higher percentage of certain kinds of crimes - witness the decades-long grooming gang scandal in England. — Jeremy Murray

that's not how it plays out in the united states, in the united states, most of the crimes are committed by people who already live here. However, it's tricky to tell the difference between a crime and non-crime, which is why I included "predatory behavior" in my analysis, because it doesn't have to be illegal to be harmful.

Yep, that's fair. Thank you - very reasonable position.

I also don't think it really makes any sense to morally judge someone who violates a country's immigration laws if they are only trying to improve their situation peacefully. There are ways to immigrate to the united states legally, but clearly a lot of illegal immigrants are not able to complete those procedures, or don't know how. — ProtagoranSocratist

That's fair. I just don't think that's the USA's problem. They should come in legally. I don't think its at all fair, or reasonable to post-hoc ignore your laws to be 'nice'.

DACA was good. But its been weaponized. If you're in the US illegally, get your shit together. I can't see any argument that would deny the US the right to remove a criminal who's been there for 40 years and never got their papers together, despite DACA.

Now comes comments about enforcement tactics. I presume we're closerr there than anywhere else in this. But I also assume we have different 'facts' due to informational bottlenecks, echo chambers etc.. (i'm joking - it may not be worth wading into that, lol).

I said I would use explicitly rationality to try to get people to act in certain ways, rather htan moral reasoning. I am quite sure I fail constantly, lol. — AmadeusD

Okay, so then your whole position is apparently that you would attempt to rationally persuade people to act in certain ways, but you would not call that sort of rational persuasion a moral argument? If that's it, then I think this goes back to our old conversation where you were unable to define what you mean by "moral." In my book if you are rationally persuading someone to behave in a particular way, then you are offering a moral argument by definition.

That is utterly bizarre and contrary to the concepts of those terms. I also think you're either lying or one of us is misremembering our conversation. I'll explain.

Morality is trying to make decisions based on 'right' and 'wrong'. That's it. There isn't anything more interesting to be said. I said this at the time (and several other places) as best I can recall. What you were trying to get out of me is what I think constitutes those two things. I also gave a direct response (as i have here) to that. It is simply what makes me feel good or bad (which is 100% subjective... ending the discussion (although, it is describable or reportable)). It doesn't apply to other people. I've been consistent about that too.

Moral reasoning is trying to convince something their act is good or bad. That is entirely different from rational reasoning which is about what will achieve the stated goal or not (in this context).

I think you're inventing problems.

P.S as not that important, but worth knowing: I don't often do this with people who I don't know well. I find it absolute folly to try to discuss anything that relies on emotional reactivity with anyone for the most part. People I know well; we can navigate together and find a way out of hte emotionality into something practical and helpful in the real world. Others are extremely reticent to allow any level of letting the guard down incase I am able to invalidate their emotional response to a situation. Which is a 100% reasonable, but a sign of human nature I quite abhor. That is why this forum is such an interesting place to me. People who, for the most part, can do the discussion without becoming insufferable, yet who I don't know.

Moral reasoning is trying to convince something their act is good or bad. That is entirely different from rational reasoning which is about what will achieve the stated goal or not (in this context).

I think you're inventing problems. — AmadeusD

Moral reasoning attempts to convince others to behave in particular ways, and that is what you are engaged in. I don't know of any academic emotivists or non-cognitivists who would disagree with me on this. For example, both Ayer and Stevenson would see your attempts at behavioral persuasion as moral acts. There is nothing else they could be. Hare would be even more explicit, in that if you are not describing then you are prescribing. There is no such thing as trying to convince someone to behave in a certain way, and thereby arguing non-morally. Emotivists understand this as well as anyone else. Your idea that, "I am trying to persuade them to behave in a certain way, and I am doing so non-morally," is simply ad hoc, and this would be recognized even by the academics who take up the same meta-ethical position that you do.

There is nothing else they could be. — Leontiskos

Then we have nothing to talk about. I have explicitly, reasonably laid out why reasoning someone to a behaviour on practical terms is not moral reasoning.

"You want to change the tyre? Ok, well stop using a screwdriver, you're going to neeed a tyre iron. Pick that up and bring it here."

Nothing moral about that.

There is no such thing as trying to convince someone to behave in a certain way, and thereby arguing non-morally. — Leontiskos

Well, there is. I've just shown it. What a bizarre line to take my man.

- I would invite you to actually read some moral philosophers, specifically those within the traditions you identity with. You will notice that they do not follow or even acknowledge your approach, namely the approach where you try to persuade people to behave in the ways you want them to behave but then claim, in an ad hoc manner, that your persuasion is in no way moral. Reading such philosophers would presumably give you an opportunity to engage these issues in a more substantive manner. It is a great shortcoming of a metaethical theory when literally zero philosophers recognize it as a viable approach.

I can't understand how you're not actually understanding what I'm saying.

I do not, ever, try to convince people to do things because i want them to. I only ever rationally persuade people to do what will best achieve their stated goal. The morality of this is that I care to help another person toward their goal. *this with the carve-out for those I know well, and that I do not deny is moral reasoning ever*. There is a direct, strict delineation between this, rational, goal-oriented persuasion, and moral, good/bad oriented persuasion (There is an internal moral logic to what goals I would be motivated to help achieve though, for sure).

Your unfounded assumptions noted and rejected. You aren't particularly good at this part of the exchange. It hampers us discussion these things often, which is a shame - I really enjoy the exchanges. They just always end like this. I'm not sure how to get around it with your persistently being convinced you are right.

I do not, ever, try to convince people to do things because i want them to. I only ever rationally persuade people to do what will best achieve their stated goal. — AmadeusD

You've obviously gone beyond hypothetical imperatives in this thread. For example, see these posts:

I will try to enforce [my moral positions] where i am not obviously violating rights — AmadeusD

My reasoning is what I am trying to get other people to assent to in those situations. — AmadeusD

The wrong-maker appears to be the thoughts. — AmadeusD

And we've already been over this with respect to my thread on non-hypothetical ought-judgments.

Even in the case where you call the police to prevent someone from violating your or another's "rights", you are engaged in classic moral behavior. You are attempting to get someone to behave in a particular way regardless of any goal they might have. There is nothing special or non-moral about the legal sphere.

You are doing the same thing again. I'll go through your charge and make it quite clear you are simply not coming into contact with what I'm saying - and, I think I apologised for that if it's my fault, but if not, here you are: I'm sorry.

For example, see these posts — Leontiskos

1. This is my telling you how I behave. Nothing about convincing other people. I, for instance, will refrain from such and such, or choose to do such and such, often on moral grounds. That's all. If you'd like to import more to that statement, that's fine, but not what I said or mean. If you need to take this reply as a clarification, feel free to do so. I don't think it was unclear, myself.

2. And in those situations the reasoning is "what will get you toward your stated goal". Which has almost nothing to do with me or my opinions. It is a-moral (again, unless we import discussions about the goal. And that's where I'll make a moral decision whether or not to engage - as above).

3. Forgive me for not quite understanding the thread here - That statement was a fairly different conversation than the previous two statements pertain to (on review as well as from memory). In any case, assuming you're trying to pin me down to some moral claim: yes, actions which are considered 'immoral' are made so by their intention in most cases. I think I made a case for that, and If you want to go in to it feel free. It seems that was left by the wayside going into other grounds.

Even in the case where you call the police to prevent someone from violating your or another's "rights", you are engaged in classic moral behavior. — Leontiskos

I don't. I have literally never called the police in my entire life. Not once.

You are attempting to get someone to behave in a particular way regardless of any goal they might have. — Leontiskos

As above, no I'm not. I am trying to get them toward their goal. I have been quite clear about this - I suggest the mildly-mind-reading aspect of your thinking is doing some lifting here that it shouldn't be. That isn't derogatory - we have to fill gaps to come up with decent responses most of the time. I would just say in this case, it's better not to because these are nuanced concepts and you are not in my head when I do these things. You may also want to bear in mind I spent several years sociopathic. I know hte difference between moral and practical reason.

There is nothing special or non-moral about the legal sphere. — Leontiskos

I don't know where you think our conversation is at, but this is not pertinent.

I have literally never called the police in my entire life. Not once. — AmadeusD

:lol:

:clap:

I'll go through your charge and make it quite clear you are simply not coming into contact with what I'm saying - and, I think I apologised for that if it's my fault, but if not, here you are: I'm sorry. — AmadeusD

Okay, fair.

1. This is my telling you how I behave. Nothing about convincing other people. — AmadeusD

So you would say that when you tell me that, "I will try to enforce [my moral positions] where i am not obviously violating rights," this act of enforcement is not moral in nature?

2. And in those situations the reasoning is "what will get you toward your stated goal". Which has almost nothing to do with me or my opinions. It is a-moral — AmadeusD

So all you have ever done in this thread is spoken about how to help other people achieve their goals? Don't you think you've also spoken about how to get other people to achieve your goals?

I don't. I have literally never called the police in my entire life. Not once. — AmadeusD

And you never would? Similarly, why would you stop enforcing your own moral positions "where I am not obviously violating rights"? Why would rights prevent you?

Earlier when you said things like this it seemed like you at least partially perceived an inconsistency in your own approach:

You may be right about the disconnect between those arguments. — AmadeusD

-

As above, no I'm not. I am trying to get them toward their goal. I have been quite clear about this - I suggest the mildly-mind-reading aspect of your thinking is doing some lifting here that it shouldn't be. — AmadeusD

Well look at quotes like these:

It should also be clear that I only ever try to get people to either act or not act. I don't care much what their moral position is. — AmadeusD

I said I would use explicitly rationality to try to get people to act in certain ways, rather htan moral reasoning. — AmadeusD

I don't think it requires mind-reading to understand that you try to persuade people to act in certain ways in order to achieve ends that you desire. But you think this doesn't really count against your position because you dub it "rational" rather than "moral."

I know hte difference between moral and practical reason. — AmadeusD

Can you tell me what the difference is? Is it based on what you said ?


My general point here is that it is hard to believe that you are a thoroughgoing moral subjectivist (or emotivist). The more particular point is that many of the things you said early in the thread militate against such an idea. To take one example:

I think the Law does well-enough when it comes to moral regulation. Its often wrong... — AmadeusD

How does a moral subjectivist claim that the law is often wrong when it comes to moral regulation? Are you saying, with the emotivists, something like, "Often, 'boo law!' "? If not and you actually think that the law can be (and often is) wrong, then how is that supposed to work on moral subjectivism?

So you would say that when you tell me that, "I will try to enforce [my moral positions] where i am not obviously violating rights," this act of enforcement is not moral in nature? — Leontiskos

This is tricky to give a yes or no to. The answer properly is 'yes'. But what i've said there is about how I behave, Not what I try to have others do around me, if you can grok the difference. I wil behave in ways that appear morally righteous to me. The world around me will go on. But my behaviour in the world is a form of enforcement on my account. Perhaps my terms are just shoddy.

So all you have ever done in this thread is spoken about how to help other people achieve their goals? Don't you think you've also spoken about how to get other people to achieve your goals? — Leontiskos

I think you're being a little callous in your capturing of the situation, but in a significant sense, yes, that's right. When I speak about how i interact with other people, i try my best to help people toward their goals. The decision to do so is moral. The activity of, lets say, educating someone as how best to achieve their goal in my view, is entirely practical as I see it. I could just as easily leave off and nothing would be different morally.

And you never would? Similarly, why would you stop enforcing your own moral positions "where I am not obviously violating rights"? Why would rights prevent you? — Leontiskos

Not that I can imagine, no but I wont stand too strongly behind that. I don't know the future. It seems wrong, in most cases, to me. I just understand the efficiency for social cohesion so I'm not railing against police as an institution.
If my behaviour violates other people's rights, that's counter to an overarching moral intention to maintain social and cultural cohesion. This is a legal argument rather than a strictly moral one, but to be sure, I am making a moral call to resile from a behaviour once I note it may be violating another's rights of some kind.

Well look at quotes like these: — Leontiskos

There's no inconsistency. If I am trying to get someone to act, its on practical grounds due to a moral decision to help them. You must clearly delineate the two modes. A moral decision is made in my mind - I then behave without moral reasoning in persuading the other to act toward their own goal (not mine. That's incorrect). My (moral) desire is to help the person. Not their goal, per se. The how-to is somewhat arbitrary.

But you think this doesn't really count against your position because you dub it "rational" rather than "moral." — Leontiskos

It simply doesn't., because it simply is. I understand if you feel those things can't come apart. That's fair, but not my position and I don't see it as required to make sense of all this.

Can you tell me what the difference is? — Leontiskos

The quote you use there is let's call it unfinished, as a response to this quesiton. Roughly moral reasoning is that which gets us to do something because of its rightness or wrongness. Practical reason is trying to do things which will achieve an arbitrary goal. So, in my example, if my moral position was that it's good to help anyone whatever then you might find me teaching a racist how best to gut Chinese children. But my moral reasoning tells me not to help that person toward their goal. The reasoning-to-act issue never arises. Had it, the moral problem would be in my decision to help them, not my reasoning on how best they could achieve their barbaric (i presume moral) outcomes.

My general point here is that it is hard to believe that you are a thoroughgoing moral subjectivist (or emotivist). — Leontiskos

I think most people have this trouble; particularly the theologically inclined. For instance I don't need answers to 'why are we here' or 'what does it mean to be human' or whatever to get on with my life all hunky dory. I don't care. We are here. We are human. What the 'means' is made up stuff we do for fun, basically. I get that its tough to understand, but there's a massive difference between being a subjectivist when it comes to morality, and being either a-moral, or dismissing morality entirely. Alex O'Connor does a good job of discussion emotivist in these terms imo.

How does a moral subjectivist claim that the law is often wrong when it comes to moral regulation? — Leontiskos

As an example, with wills and estates there is generally a 'moral duty' to provide for one's children after death (if one has anything to pass on, anyway). I think this is wrong, overreach and inapt for a legal framework that doesn't interfere with people's personal affairs. So, that's my personal moral view. I don't think that's going to be true for the next guy. So i don't care to do anything about the policy. I have to enforce it regularly, actually (well, I have a part in doing so regularly).

This is why I think the Law does a pretty good job. For the most part, its been 'democratically' hammered out over time, through common law, into something resembling a "close-to-consensus" and I'm happy to live with that.

You say 'hes been complaining about'. I don't quite know what you're talking about yet, — AmadeusD

They may mean when Trump calls immigrants "garbage" and "vermin" and says they are "poisoning the blood of the country" and the "country is being ravaged by migrant crime" and that foreign countries are "emptying out their prisons and mental institutions" and sending all their worst people to the US. And oh yes, "They're eating the cats, they're eating the dogs."

Would you call this ideologically evil?

(I can't quite see what the context of that was - long post) I would call this muddled, semi-untrue media talking points. I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump, but many of these are clearly tongue-in-cheek or contrary to other things he's said. Mkaes it difficult to get upset for me beyond the President shouldn't be such a buffoon.

I would call this muddled, semi-untrue media talking points. — AmadeusD

They were Trump's words

clearly tongue-in-cheek — AmadeusD

No, they weren't. But what is interesting is your compulsion to defend such language.

be such a buffoon. — AmadeusD

If only that was all he were.

They were Trump's words — Questioner

The rest of my comment matters. Like.. really matters. It seems you're quite good at losing nuance in service of clearly (and reasonably) emotional takes on things.

No, they weren't. But what is interesting is your compulsion to defend such language. — Questioner

This is why the rest of my comment mattters:

I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump — AmadeusD

I don't think you're doing this in anything close to good faith. Twice, in one post, you have ignored the context in service of your emotionally-derived response. So be it.

If only that was all he were. — Questioner

Fair position. I don't take it.

This is why the rest of my comment mattters:

I don't defend most of the utterances we could at least reliably ascribe to Trump — AmadeusD

That wasn't the rest of your comment. Indeed, you followed that with a "but" - and this being a philosophical forum - we perhaps should turn to the philosophical use of "but" - which is used to show that the second clause is in opposition to the first

No it isn't. That's something you require to support your position, but is in fact, not the case.

I like oranges, but the colour is odd.