O noes! The theme is gone!

Disney is excellent at emotional manipulation?

Disney only offers you the feels because you pay them.

Whores.

I’m going way, WAY back in the posts here, so forgive me for falling behind, but I want to touch on the statements that were addressed regarding how his racism, misogyny, felony counts, etc., all should have been disqualifiers for anyone with a moral compass.

There are two layers to this and two points where that could happen. I’ll start with the later one, which is the general election. Beyond economic policy, a big driver for people voting for him is the general belief that he, and the Republican Party at large, stand against abortion. To an awful lot of people, abortion is murder, and I’d contend that regardless of the degree to which you agree with that statement, you’d at least agree that murder should probably hit right up on that list with racism, misogyny, fomenting insurrection, the various felony counts, etc. as a disqualifier. To these people, the abortion in this country is basically a mass-murder epidemic that has been going on for decades. It doesn’t help that neither side has any concept of how to argue with each other about it properly. One side accuses the other of telling women what they can and can’t do with their bodies, which gets nowhere with the other side who claims that what they’re doing is saying what you can and can’t do with the body of a child that can’t speak for itself.

With all that said, and I’m not saying I condone Trump’s moral failings, you can’t discount that argument and then expect them to buy into all your dealbreakers. This is where the “both sides are equally bad” argument comes into play, which I’d contend is more intellectually honest than the counter-arguments given that it’s at least a basic acknowledgment of how things are deal-breakers for the other side.

Now, I’m not saying I like that, because, as I mentioned, there are two layers. The other layer, and the one that came first, was the primary, and this is where the pro-life Trump voters blew it. I’ve heard very little in church-going circles during primary season, and I think the right thing to do for those who think the Republican Party is the way to go for pro-life policy would be to speak out against the moral failings of certain candidates earlier in hopes of avoiding a situation in the general election where they’re forced to vote between two people who are or allegedly are morally reprehensible.

I say none of this to justify supporting Trump, as I don’t. I just say this to point out that trying to tout Trump’s moral failures as disqualifiers doesn’t go far with people if you refuse to acknowledge that what you consider acceptable is a severe moral failure in their eyes. You don’t have to agree with it, but you need to consider that maybe you need a different argument to convince them to vote your way.

Lord Gonchar:

Disney only offers you the feels because you pay them.

Wrong! Disney offers you the feels because it makes them feel good! Have you learned nothing in this thread?

Good points, sirloindude. The only pushback I would offer on your abortion point is, haven’t polls shown that national support for Roe v. Wade and for abortion being generally legal with some restrictions sits in the 70% range? Or at least 60%? Based on that, outlawing abortion seems to be a minority opinion in this country.

Brian Noble:

Even setting the example aside: all of this is subconscious. So, it depends on your brain recognizing what "good" is without having to think about it---and that depends on reading the emotional reaction of the other person. If the other person is pleased by what you have done for them, you'd read that reaction and have this response. (Again: I think. I am way out over my skis here).

My understanding (entirely based on YouTube and podcasts) is that we have "mirror neurons" which fire in nearly the exact same way when we observe other people's experiences as our neurons do when we experience those same things. This allows us such abstract thoughts as "how would I feel if that were me?"

The lack of this empathy is psychopathy (amorality) and I find it much more troublesome than immorality. (e.g. I find it easier to understand someone who knows killing is wrong, but justifies it in some way than someone who thinks killing another person is in the same vein as breaking a window.) Empathy is something that, at least as I can tell, is so fundamentally human that everything we do, teach, and build is based on the idea that a person can put themselves in another's shoes and understand how their actions impact others.

And this is ultimately the source of our morality. We can put ourselves in the shoes of others and say, "If that were me, I wouldn't want that. Therefore, I will not do that to someone else."

TheMillenniumRider:

I think we should send this for trials and testing.

Lord Gonchar:

Then I guess I'd have to split the hair further as say if we really got picky, could that response be the goal of the action?

Well in my case (using it as a therapeutic tool) the goal is to exercise the parts of the brain that need a tune-up to help pull a person out of a depressed mood state. Here is a quick run-down of what's happening, but Brian already covered the bases. Maybe not surprisingly, a person in the midst of a depressed episode doesn't experience that pay-back...at least not right away. But under the hood they are steadily altering the way their brain functions (and therefore how they experience the world around them) and over time they get that neuron orgasm.

I have an aunt that, shortly after the election, posted this:

She openly admits she voted for Trump the first time solely on her pro-life perspective. And guess what? Trump came through.

But it goes deeper than just abortion; millions of people (like my aunt) firmly believe that Trump was anointed by their god to lead the USA, and they also believe the USA is their god's special country, somehow unique on the world stage on a spiritual level.

But Bakeman's correct; abortion (and even religion) alone won't win you the electoral college, but that's why Trump says and does all the outlandish things he does.

Pro Life? Trump's for you. Think the GOP has better economic ideas? Trump's for you. Racist? Trump's for you. Bigoted against the trans community? Trump's for you. Just voting for a dude over a woman? Trump's for you. Are you into internment camps and mass deportation? Trump's for you.

One thing Trump also did was do things like go on Joe Rogan's podcast. Like it or not, Harris declining that was a seriously dumb decision for her, as he (Joe) reaches an enormous audience. You're not going to win by just making speeches broadcast on networks, who no one under the age of 30 watches.

Point being, Trump won (in part) because he became a "something-for-everyone-on-team- elephant" (see the above list) candidate.

And now we have a vaccine-denier running the health department.

What's the over-under on when Measles makes a comeback?

ApolloAndy:

The lack of this empathy is psychopathy (amorality) and I find it much more troublesome than immorality. (e.g. I find it easier to understand someone who knows killing is wrong, but justifies it in some way than someone who thinks killing another person is in the same vein as breaking a window.) Empathy is something that, at least as I can tell, is so fundamentally human that everything we do, teach, and build is based on the idea that a person can put themselves in another's shoes and understand how their actions impact others.

Psychopaths that don't experience empathy have an underdeveloped/dysfunctional amygdala. You can call it "amorality", but there is a neurological reason this experience happens. If I pushed a button and shut off your amygdala, you would instantly become someone who would not feel empathy. This doesn't excuse terrible behavior (not all "psychopaths" do terrible things), but it does explain the lack of this "fundamentally human" experience.

I think I'm done typing now.

We are already trending there on measles:

Maintaining high national and local MMR vaccination coverage remains central to sustaining measles elimination. Risk for widespread U.S. measles transmission remains low because of high population immunity; however, national 2-dose MMR vaccination coverage has remained below the Healthy People 2030 target of 95% (the estimated population-level immunity necessary to prevent sustained measles transmission) for 3 consecutive years, leaving approximately 250,000 kindergarten children susceptible to measles each year. Furthermore, 2-dose MMR vaccination coverage estimates in 12 states and the District of Columbia were <90%, and during the 2022–23 school year, exemption rates among kindergarten children exceeded 5% in 10 states. Clusters of unvaccinated persons placed communities at risk for large outbreaks, as occurred during the central Ohio outbreak in 2022: 94% of measles patients were unvaccinated and 42% were hospitalized.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/vo...7314a1.htm

Seems likely though the trend will continue, and unfortunately, accelerate.

I know that 95% of this audience doesn't care and most of the other 5% of the audience is the choir that I am about to preach to, but I've seen that meme quite a bit and it is biggest pile of hypocritical, nonsense horse**** I've seen in a long time.

Comparing Trump to King David is insulting to anything related to the Jewish or Christian religions. King David was chosen by God and anointed because he was humble, obedient, and repentant. He clearly made a very bad choice with Bathsheba and Uriah, the incident mentioned in that meme, but as soon as he was called out for it by the prophet Nathan, literally the very next verse (2 Samuel 12:13) is “I have sinned against the Lord.” King David then spent the rest of his life trying to make up for his adulterous ways and do right by his country and his God. When asked if he confesses, Trump literally said "I don't have anything to confess or repent for," one of the foundational tenants of the Christian right (also important to all Christians across the spectrum, but seemingly way more important to the Christian right).

It is obvious that God choses and uses flawed people (yours truly among them, I hope), but it is also obvious that when choosing leaders we should hold them to a standard of conduct, character, and especially (as Christians) humility before God. God can choose who God will choose, but biblically, God never chose someone so brazenly opposed to the tenants of the faith and to suggest that he is comparable to King David is the worst form of mental gymnastics, hypocrisy, and short sightedness.

This concludes my sermon.

You should see the rest of what she posts. To say this is the tip of the iceberg from that branch of my family tree is a gross understatement.

That was a great dissection. I'm tempted to share that with her, but I stopped arguing on Facebook about 5 years ago.

But I appreciate it. I'm in the choir.

I mean, I was in the glee club at Ohio State, but that counts.

OhioStater:

Maybe not surprisingly, a person in the midst of a depressed episode doesn't experience that pay-back...at least not right away. But under the hood they are steadily altering the way their brain functions (and therefore how they experience the world around them) and over time they get that neuron orgasm.

Do these people tend to do less for others in general because they don't get the payoff (as often or in the same way)?

OhioStater:
You can call it "amorality", but there is a neurological reason this experience happens.

So what you guys (both you and Brian) have done for me is separate the scientific responses from the "morality" in your descriptions. Both of you made a point to differentiate.

Perhaps I'm reading into it, but, it stood out in the course of both of your responses.

Can we scientifically measure, gauge or quantify morality in a real way?

And why do we have to teach small children to behave in certain ways? - to share, not to take from others, don't hit, etc.

I dunno. Still seems to me there's very little innate about morality and the concepts of good and bad and most of it is just generally beneficial social construct.

Lord Gonchar:

Can we scientifically measure, gauge or quantify morality in a real way?

I have the perfect stocking stuffer for you:

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

Lord Gonchar:

And why do we have to teach small children to behave in certain ways? - to share, not to take from others, don't hit, etc.

I assumed this would come up so I was thinking about it most of the afternoon. I guess it is for the same reason we have to teach kids not to touch a hot stove and not to eat too many donuts. It is ultimately true that all of these actions will result in harm but it takes some amount of experience to figure out what happens and why. Especially with moral actions, the consequences take a long time to come back around, can be irreparable, and often the causality is not apparent. In fact, the very reason I started going to church (not raised as such) was because I got in trouble with the law in high school after years of shoplifting because "I want what I want, morals be damned" and realized that my life was not headed in a direction that I wanted it to. A kid can do a lot of harm to themselves, their relationships, and ultimately their own future peace and fulfilment before they realize what's going on. And I'm not even talking about legal consequences, but lifetimes of regret, shame, and remorse.

My assumption, based on my own life experience, is that people will mostly eventually figure out that altruism and benevolence is a more fulfilling way to live, but the damage done in the meantime could be avoided with guidance and instruction.

Spoken like a pastor.

(and I mean that as a compliment)

Bakeman31092:

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values

I legitly appreciate that recommendation. I might have to pass though - the description and reviews are already making me want to punch babies.

Also, why is it under Religion & Spirituality? Because if we're tying morality to religion then you're losing me even more.

Also also, from the summary of the book:

...for just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality.

Oh my God. There's not a GIF that rolls it's eyes hard enough.

Man, that's a book I'd hateread.

...

Add to cart.

Lord Gonchar:

to punch babies.

In a morally wrong or amoral way?

Lord Gonchar:

Also, why is it under Religion & Spirituality? Because if we're tying morality to religion then you're losing me even more.

Not sure it's in the right category. From the first review of that book:

Harris frequently slams religion and if you already have an unfavorable opinion on science, you will probably find this book difficult to agree with.

I've never found science and religion mutually exclusive. I do find that a lot of supposed "settled" science is anything but, however. That said, as a believer, I probably disagree with Gonch and align more with Andy on the existence of objective morality.

Vater:

That said, as a believer, I probably disagree with Gonch and align more with Andy on the existence of objective morality.

Oh. My. God. Becky, look at those sliders!

ApolloAndy:
In a morally wrong or amoral way?

Depends on the POV, I suppose.

But I can't think of a solid scenario where I can argue for punching the baby beyond personal satisfaction, except for maybe demonic possession and subsequent threat from said demon baby.

However, in that case, I think we can all agree that "demonic possession" supercedes "baby" and there really is no moral dilemma there.

Vater:
I've never found science and religion mutually exclusive.

I feel like I'm coming to this fight from more of a philosophical place. I don't know exactly what that means.

The funny thing about arguments from both science and religion for me is there's a spot on the Venn Diagram where they overlap that makes me hate them both equally. That spot is dogma.

Hell, this whole thread might even have sort of built up on a sense of political dogma.

(look at me abuse the hell out of that word - so immoral!)

Dogma?

Ligma.

Lord Gonchar:

I don't know exactly what that means.

I think I mean--and I could be wrong--that there are people who find that a lot of science disproves the existence of a higher being. I don't.