Most and least moral posters

[dazzleman]

Good points, angus, as always.

I do think however, that one can be both tolerant and moral.  It just depends what a person is tolerant of.

If you are tolerant, for example, of people marrying outside their race, that doesn't preclude morality because there is nothing immoral about marrying outside your race, though at one time people thought there was (another example, as you said, of not confusing traditionalism with moralism).

But if you tolerant of 45-year-old men sexually abusing children, as opebo does, then that does preclude morality.

[dazzleman]

But it is that rejection that is tantamount to the concept of amorality.

I would tend to disagree. One can have morals, without believing them to be objective or universal.

Emsworth, I often agree with you, but here I think you are taking your position to too much of an extreme.

It is true that morals evolve over time, and that there is a certain elasticity to morals.  But there also need to be certain bedrock morals for the good of society.

My example of a 45-year-old man sexually abusing a child is a good illustration of bedrock moral standards.  Opebo claims that my disapproval of this is strictly subjective.  But he fails to look at the reasons I may disapprove of it.  I disapprove of it because a child is most likely unable to defend himself/herself against unwanted advances, and such sexual contact at a very young age is emotionally devastating for the child, and can harm him/her for life.

What is really comes down to is that morality is about the protection of the least powerful, and the most defenseless.  That is really my conception of morality.  I oppose irresponsible child-bearing, and certain types of behavior while a person is raising children, and consider these things immoral because they harm the lives of young children who don't have a choice in the matter, and are unable to speak for or defend themselves.  A society that approves of behavior that is harmful to the defenseless, simply because some people may enjoy it, is not going to be a very pleasant place to live after too long.

I have room in my thinking for a somewhat unconventional code of morality, so long as the important items are met.  angus has made a lot of good comments here, so I'll use him as an example.  Certainly, his life has not lived up to the strictures of the Christian Coalition.  But he appears to be a good father to his son, and for that reason, I would consider him to be a moral guy, based on what I know about him.  He does not appear to be the type of guy who would be engaging in behavior that will put in danger a person for whom he is responsible, and who is unable to defend himself.  So I think that there has to be some elasticity in moral standards, but they cannot be totally subjective.  There has to be a bedrock bottom line.

[dazzleman]

I also have some fierce, explosive gas right now.  Probably from that Japanese Tou Fu we got from Wal-Mart instead of the usual chinese stuff we get.  Azumaya extra firm.  Definitely not recommended.  Stick with the Wu Chong brand.  Anyway, this all deserves a better response than I'm capable of giving in my current bloated, humorless state.  Hasta luego.

  After you've blown all that gas out, it will be interesting to see your response to all this.  Good luck, man.

[dazzleman]

As far as the most moral posters go, there are a few candidates who are the most moral in a conventional sense:

Frodo
Ebowed
Keystone Phil
Gabu
Nym90

I know there are others, too, that I will think of later.

For least moral, I think the choice is clear:  opebo.
Flyers2006 also exhibits a certain aggressive rejection of certain types of morality, as does BRTD, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them immoral.  I think that their morals will evolve over time as they mature.

[dazzleman]

Frodo

I think I remember reading one of Frodo's posts where he said he was bisexual.  I don't know if that's still true or not, but that would automatically put him out of the running.

I don't remember that, but it doesn't really matter to me.  He has come across as a moral person to me.  Of course, I don't know him personally, so it's only an impression, as in all these cases.

[dazzleman]

Well thank you for disagreeing with Frodo.  What do u mean by "aggressive rejection of certain types of morality?"

just that you aggressively reject the moral teachings of the Christian religion, and that you are, in my opinion, overcorrecting for some of the extremism inherent in Catholic moral teaching by adopting NARAL-type extremism, which in my opinion is worse.

I don't think this makes you an immoral person, as I said.  I think you're in a reaction phase right now, which is not unusual.  It's something I went through also.

[dazzleman]

Dazzle, I'm a bit curious as to why you regard me moral; perhaps if you knew me more personally you'd know about my fits of rage where I want to kill people over minor things.

Well, I have fits of rage too sometimes, so don't feel too bad.

It's just an overall impression I have from the tone of your posts.  Of course, I don't really know you; I can only form a superficial impression.  But I don't recall seeing you take an aggressive anti-Christian position, and I have not seen you argue that morals are for ignorant old people, as some Democrats do in both cases.

[dazzleman]

Most: Jake

Whoa, maybe I need to start posting my personal life on the forum so y'all know what I'm actually like

What do you have going on that will make people believe that you're not moral?  Sounds as if it could be interesting!

[dazzleman]

And it's important to remind folks that just because you've been convicted three times of DWI and you don't support welfare and workers unions and your oil-drilling company gets a no-bid sweetheart deal from the your best friend's son, now president, doesn't make you anti-morality. 

Has Cheney really been convicted 3 times of DWI?  I guess he doesn't have to worry about that now that he has a government chauffeur.

I wonder why this was never publicized the way Bush's DWI was publicized.

BTW, haven't you mentioned that you've been busted for DWI more than once?  Isn't there a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black here?

[dazzleman]

It was twice, you mindless Cheney bashers.

Seriously now, the Bush one got more attention because
1. He was 30
2. He was at the top of the ticket
3. He had tried to cover it up
4. Cheney's were DUIs, which might be slightly less serious

On the other hand, Cheney managed to get busted in Wyoming in 1960. That takes skills.

1960?  So he must have been about 18 years old at the time.  No wonder nobody really cares.  I don't want to be judged by some of the things I did at 18 even now, never mind when I'm past 60 years old.

When was he busted for DWI most recently?

[dazzleman]

Funny guy you are.  like Bush, I've only been arrested for DWI once.  But unlike Bush, I was never convicted.  yes, jfern, I think it's not accurate to say Cheney's been convicted 3 times.  I think he was only convicted on two of those arrests.  Bush was arrested for it once.  Convicted once.  Now, before you start asking, "why the hell did a rich guy like that let himself get convicted?!" remember that was back in 1976.  Dazzleman, you and I have discussed this sort of thing before.  You'll remember things were just different then.  Bush, for example, was arrested only in the sense that he was given a ticket and asked to come up and pay a fine of around 150 dollars.  Back then, you just got a slap on the wrist.  I had been pulled over many times, piss drunk, could hardly walk, and not arrested or ticketed.  I remember once, when I was about 18, a year under the legal age of 19, I was driving, drunk as a skunk, and my two other 18-year-old friends were with me in the car.  We got pulled over for running a stop sign.  They made us get out, and lectured us about the dangers of drunk driving, then found the two cases of cheap beer in the trunk.  One of them said, "now, if there was no evidence, then we'd have nothing to bust you on."   so we gave the two cops the two cases of beer.  "Enjoy, sir."  Problem solved.  True story.  That was then.  Nowadays, get pulled over for drunk driving and they act like you just raped a young man-child or something.  Nose to the wall, you scumbag!  And that's if you're white!!!  I hate to even think about how they treat you otherwise. 

I'm not sure these kids today appreciate what it meant for Bush and Cheney to get "busted" for DWI.  They imagine a few hours in jail, lawyers, huge fines, and social stigma.  you know better.  Times have changed, that's for sure.

Hah, I was just busting your man marbles, dude.  I knew you had mentioned you got a DWI at some point.

Man, you're right about it not being a big deal back when us older guys first started driving.  I think in New York, when I first started driving, they didn't even suspend your license for the first DWAI (driving with ability impaired, a lower offense than driving while intoxicated, or DWI).  As I recall, they stiffened the penalties in the early 1980s.

Still, it just wasn't taken that seriously then.  One of my friends had just come from a bar, and got pulled over for running a red light.  The cop asked where he was coming from, and he gave the name of the bar.  He was let off with a warning, and never even tested for blood alcohol level.  This same guy drove so drunk that one night, he was driving home on a highway after a night of heavy drinking, needed to take a leak, and he stopped the car in the middle of the highway, got out, and bled the lizzard right on the highway.  Inside the car were several drunk/stoned guys who had no idea that they could have become road pizza at any minute.  And he never got a single DWI.

I was relatively careful about driving drunk, even then.  By no means did I follow the letter of the law, and I'm sure I drove with a buzz many times, but if I was really bombed, I did refrain from driving.  My big issue was speeding and the tickets that resulted from it, but that's not as serious.  I had a piss-poor driving record for a long time because of that, and it's still an issue to some extent, though I don't seem to get nailed as often now as I did back then.  Must be the nicer car.   But I'm still an inveterate speeder.

BTW, I love your story about giving the cops the beer.  Pretty cool officers you were dealing with.  You could get away with a lot more back then.  Those were the days, man.