It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I Like Trump, In One Simple Gif

page: 33
84
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I like to point out the flaws in your arguments. You do the same. It is what ATS is about.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me now after having admitted that you deliberately targeted me and ignored the others. You discredited yourself.


You're double standards and hypocrisy are so intertwined that I doubt you would have cared anyways.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Pot calling the kettle black.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I like to point out the flaws in your arguments. You do the same. It is what ATS is about.


You haven't pointed out any such thing. An "A" for effort, though.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kryties




Your opinion means absolutely nothing to me now after having admitted that you deliberately targeted me and ignored the others. You discredited yourself.


You're double standards and hypocrisy are so intertwined that I doubt you would have cared anyways.


LOL at the person talking about double standards and hypocrisy - after having literally just displayed those attributes themselves.

Keep digging that hole mate. The form is WAY beyond poor now.
edit on 27/5/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Pot calling the kettle black.


False.

Pretty soon you'll start speaking in slogans. They all start speaking in slogans.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




LOL at the person talking about double standards and hypocrisy - after having literally just displayed those attributes himself.


I don't think you know what double standards and hypocrisy are. Have I called you names? No. Have I called anyone names? No. If and when you find where I have, you can properly say I was being hypocritical. Until then...nothing.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




moral outrage gave many countries the motive to refuse his attempts to expand his military and influence.


Something doesn't become true through sheer force of repetition. You won't prove it?


how about i give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the homework to your capable resources and ingenuity. you said that "moral outrage is self serving". you are not wrong, let me put that out there. but let us not assume that "self serving" means selfish, as in greedy and malanthropic (not misanthropic). the bill of rights is arguably self serving, but this does not mean that the bill of rights infringes - rather, it protects. it protects the interests of self from those who entertain the vices of self. interests vs vices, health vs indulgence. a very subtle differentiation but crucial when discussing humanitarian welfare. there are "inalienable rights" as described by the constitution, rights that could only be established by recognizing a self worth serving on a most basic level which translates to self preservation on a government level. this is where moral outrage comes into play, defending our rights from those who would take away our freedom for the good of our welfare. this is what hitler attempted and much of the world protested upon seeing the cost of such philosophy, given that genocide was considered "collateral" in the quest for peace. unfortunately, some people have difficulty discerning between peace and quiet. just as some have difficulty discerning between moral outrage and political oppression. the lines are subtle but crucial.

sorry for the lack of substance visavis articles, statistics, pictures, etc. but i feel as though anyone even passingly familiar with history is well aware of the lines that can be drawn between the nazi regime and moral outrage. and even more lines from there to philanthropic victory following the demise of said regime. im sure i can be forgiven if i leave the more dense material to google for those who need a refresher.
edit on 27-5-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Your approval is not required for others to see the flaws that I have pointed out.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Kryties




LOL at the person talking about double standards and hypocrisy - after having literally just displayed those attributes himself.


I don't think you know what double standards and hypocrisy are. Have I called you names? No. Have I called anyone names? No. If and when you find where I have, you can properly say I was being hypocritical. Until then...nothing.


Are you deliberately ignoring the hypocrisy and double standard displayed when you tried to target me for name calling and ignored the others?

LOL. This is too funny.



edit on 27/5/2017 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You admitted to your bias a few pages back.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your subsequent posts prove that you do apply double standards and hypocrisy.

edit on 27-5-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




moral outrage gave many countries the motive to refuse his attempts to expand his military and influence.


Something doesn't become true through sheer force of repetition. You won't prove it?


how about i give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the homework to your capable resources and ingenuity. you said that "moral outrage is self serving". you are not wrong, let me put that out there. but let us not assume that "self serving" means selfish, as in greedy and malanthropic (not misanthropic). the bill of rights is arguably self serving, but this does not mean that the bill of rights infringes - rather, it protects. it protects the interests of self from those who indulge in the vices of self. interests vs vices. a very precarious differentation but crucial when discussion humanitarian welfare. there are "inalienable rights" as described by the constitution, rights that could only be established by recognizing a self worth serving on a most basic level. self preservation on a government level. this is where moral outrage comes into play, defending our rights from those who would take away our freedom for the good of our welfare. this is what hitler attempted and much of the world protested upon seeing the cost of such philosophy, given that genocide was considered "collateral" in the quest for peace. unfortunately, some people have difficulty discerning between peace and quiet. just as some have difficulty discerning between moral outrage and political oppression. the lines are subtle but crucial.

sorry for the lack of substance visavis articles, statistics, pictures, etc. but i feel as though anyone even passingly familiar with history is well aware of the lines that can be drawn between the nazi regime and moral outrage. and even more lines from there to philanthropic victory following the demise of said regime. im sure i can be forgiven if i leave the more dense material to google for those who need a refresher.


That's fair. I apologize for insisting you prove your point. When I said "reductionist" and not "false" it meant I partially agreed, just that it wasn't the whole of the story. I think we can agree on that.

I think there is a fine line between the self-serving nature of moral outrage, and actual altruistic moral outrage. One is based on feelings, and the other on principle. It would be hard, unless people are honest, to determine either or.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




Are you deliberately ignoring the hypocrisy and double standard displayed when you tried to target me for name calling and ignored the others?

LOL. This is too funny.


No I'm saying you do not know what hypocrisy and double standards are, which is obvious by reading my post. Hypocrisy is:

"the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense."

Kind of like you scolding others for name-calling, and then you go ahead and call people names yourself. That's hypocrisy.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




You admitted to your bias a few pages back.


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but I bet you'll try to conflate it with the issue at hand.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you ARE ignoring your own double standards and hypocrisy.

Noted.




posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It stands on its own.

Not being guilty of the same double standards and hypocrisy shown by others doesn't mean you are not guilty of double standards and hypocrisy.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So you ARE ignoring your own double standards and hypocrisy.

Noted.



Given that I just showed your hipocrisy, and you attempt to slander me with it, only further proves your double standards.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




moral outrage gave many countries the motive to refuse his attempts to expand his military and influence.


Something doesn't become true through sheer force of repetition. You won't prove it?


how about i give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the homework to your capable resources and ingenuity. you said that "moral outrage is self serving". you are not wrong, let me put that out there. but let us not assume that "self serving" means selfish, as in greedy and malanthropic (not misanthropic). the bill of rights is arguably self serving, but this does not mean that the bill of rights infringes - rather, it protects. it protects the interests of self from those who indulge in the vices of self. interests vs vices. a very precarious differentation but crucial when discussion humanitarian welfare. there are "inalienable rights" as described by the constitution, rights that could only be established by recognizing a self worth serving on a most basic level. self preservation on a government level. this is where moral outrage comes into play, defending our rights from those who would take away our freedom for the good of our welfare. this is what hitler attempted and much of the world protested upon seeing the cost of such philosophy, given that genocide was considered "collateral" in the quest for peace. unfortunately, some people have difficulty discerning between peace and quiet. just as some have difficulty discerning between moral outrage and political oppression. the lines are subtle but crucial.

sorry for the lack of substance visavis articles, statistics, pictures, etc. but i feel as though anyone even passingly familiar with history is well aware of the lines that can be drawn between the nazi regime and moral outrage. and even more lines from there to philanthropic victory following the demise of said regime. im sure i can be forgiven if i leave the more dense material to google for those who need a refresher.


That's fair. I apologize for insisting you prove your point. When I said "reductionist" and not "false" it meant I partially agreed, just that it wasn't the whole of the story. I think we can agree on that.

I think there is a fine line between the self-serving nature of moral outrage, and actual altruistic moral outrage. One is based on feelings, and the other on principle. It would be hard, unless people are honest, to determine either or.


no apologies necessary, i have developed a policy of not doing homework for the forums unless there is legitimate confusion or fake news being pushed. sorry for the inconvenience. i do believe strongly in altruistic moral outrage, but you seem to think it doesnt carry much weight in current politics. which is your opinion and your right.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It stands on its own.

Not being guilty of the same double standards and hypocrisy shown by others doesn't mean you are not guilty of double standards and hypocrisy.


It stands on its own. The case makes itself. Trust me you won't get far in the world if this is how you derive your conclusions.



posted on May, 27 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm




moral outrage gave many countries the motive to refuse his attempts to expand his military and influence.


Something doesn't become true through sheer force of repetition. You won't prove it?


how about i give you the benefit of the doubt and leave the homework to your capable resources and ingenuity. you said that "moral outrage is self serving". you are not wrong, let me put that out there. but let us not assume that "self serving" means selfish, as in greedy and malanthropic (not misanthropic). the bill of rights is arguably self serving, but this does not mean that the bill of rights infringes - rather, it protects. it protects the interests of self from those who indulge in the vices of self. interests vs vices. a very precarious differentation but crucial when discussion humanitarian welfare. there are "inalienable rights" as described by the constitution, rights that could only be established by recognizing a self worth serving on a most basic level. self preservation on a government level. this is where moral outrage comes into play, defending our rights from those who would take away our freedom for the good of our welfare. this is what hitler attempted and much of the world protested upon seeing the cost of such philosophy, given that genocide was considered "collateral" in the quest for peace. unfortunately, some people have difficulty discerning between peace and quiet. just as some have difficulty discerning between moral outrage and political oppression. the lines are subtle but crucial.

sorry for the lack of substance visavis articles, statistics, pictures, etc. but i feel as though anyone even passingly familiar with history is well aware of the lines that can be drawn between the nazi regime and moral outrage. and even more lines from there to philanthropic victory following the demise of said regime. im sure i can be forgiven if i leave the more dense material to google for those who need a refresher.


That's fair. I apologize for insisting you prove your point. When I said "reductionist" and not "false" it meant I partially agreed, just that it wasn't the whole of the story. I think we can agree on that.

I think there is a fine line between the self-serving nature of moral outrage, and actual altruistic moral outrage. One is based on feelings, and the other on principle. It would be hard, unless people are honest, to determine either or.


no apologies necessary, i have developed a policy of not doing homework for the forums unless there is legitimate confusion or fake news being pushed. sorry for the inconvenience. i do believe strongly in altruistic moral outrage, but you seem to think it doesnt carry much weight in current politics. which is your opinion and your right.


I was probably too flippant with it. I just thinkThere are legitimate cause for moral outrage, and then there are illegitimate cause for moral outrage. This case in particular, and the subsequent moral outrage, is one such instance.



new topics

top topics



 
84
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join