How Does Morality Change?

[kystorm]

A border wall is bout as immoral as a front door. The notion that this nation should allow anybody to cross the border at any time is pure idiocy. Sure the majority might want a better life, but there are plenty of people crossing the border who are up to no good as well. This country has enough problems without needlessly adding to it.

Imo the constant propaganda of hollywood the media/news/music/games/the internet, have played a huge part in the downturn in morality. The rot gut immoral crap that comes out of most of these mediums is playing a factor and its not a coincidence.

 

[Hetfield]

A border wall is bout as immoral as a front door. The notion that this nation should allow anybody to cross the border at any time is pure idiocy. Sure the majority might want a better life, but there are plenty of people crossing the border who are up to no good as well. This country has enough problems without needlessly adding to it.

Imo the constant propaganda of hollywood the media/news/music/games/the internet, have played a huge part in the downturn in morality. The rot gut immoral crap that comes out of most of these mediums is playing a factor and its not a coincidence.

And where Trump fit into that equation of moral rot? He is in there?
I don't have a problem with border security. What I have a problem with is making them the scape goat of everything and that is what Trump does. You cannot build a wall 2,000 miles long. The very idea is idiotic.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Irvrobinson]

You cannot build a wall 2,000 miles long. The very idea is idiotic.

You're half right. The idea of building a wall for the entire southern border is idiotic, but it could be done. Compared to, say, the Hoover Dam, it wouldn't be much of an engineering feat either.

 

[Mikado463]

I don't have a problem with border security. What I have a problem with is making them the scape goat of everything

utterly ridiculous, immigration has been a political can kicked down the road for too damn long.

what's your solution to the border crisis ?

 

[Hetfield]

You're half right. The idea of building a wall for the entire southern border is idiotic, but it could be done. Compared to, say, the Hoover Dam, it wouldn't be much of an engineering feat either.

Except there are water ways and people's property that don't want the wall. There are a whole host if issues. Money being a big obstacle.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Hetfield]

utterly ridiculous, immigration has been a political can kicked down the road for too damn long.

what's your solution to the border crisis ?

Technology is my solution. A better way to get in for these people, a better system for them to get in legally. Is yours a wall? I heard one of these maga nuts at work last Friday, I'm for shooting them!

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Irvrobinson]

Except there are water ways and people's property that don't want the wall. There are a whole host if issues. Money being a big obstacle.

Even a complete wall would probably cost significantly less than the International Space Station ($150B); I think it would be an interesting debate about which would be a greater waste of funding. As for the private property issue, I brought that up in an earlier post. That's what eminent domain laws are for, but determining fair value generally involves the courts, and that of course takes time. That's why I'm in favor of giving in to Trump and giving him the $5.7B he's asking for. The initial wall funding will probably go for improving existing barriers, and he'll be out of office, even if he gets a second term, before the country has to tackle the difficult portions. In the meantime the argument and the resulting government shutdowns are just a useless distraction that cost more than the initial funding request.

 

[lovinthehd]

utterly ridiculous, immigration has been a political can kicked down the road for too damn long.

what's your solution to the border crisis ?

What crisis? You going to go along with the drumpf if he declares it a crisis?

 

[John Parks]

What crisis? You going to go along with the drumpf if he declares it a crisis?

Just a thought: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-crisis-at-the-border/

 

[lovinthehd]

Many people in this state can't stand mconnel. However every 4 years the democrats trot out a candidate worse than him, so he gets re electected. Trust me, he doesn't have alot of fans in this state.

So that's what ky in your screen name refers to....

 

[lovinthehd]

Just a thought: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-crisis-at-the-border/

That needs fact checking most likely considering the source. Crisis isn't how I'd term it in any case. Ongoing problem perhaps.

 

[lovinthehd]

Even a complete wall would probably cost significantly less than the International Space Station ($150B); I think it would be an interesting debate about which would be a greater waste of funding. As for the private property issue, I brought that up in an earlier post. That's what eminent domain laws are for, but determining fair value generally involves the courts, and that of course takes time. That's why I'm in favor of giving in to Trump and giving him the $5.7B he's asking for. The initial wall funding will probably go for improving existing barriers, and he'll be out of office, even if he gets a second term, before the country has to tackle the difficult portions. In the meantime the argument and the resulting government shutdowns are just a useless distraction that cost more than the initial funding request.

....bbbbut Space Force! We need a space shield wall!

 

[Mikado463]

....bbbbut Space Force! We need a space shield wall!

probably will........ in time !

 

[herbu]

Fake news.

Really?
From CBS News, "

New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk

New York state has enacted strong new legal protections for abortion rights. The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.
.......................
So the law changes "life at risk" to "health at risk". But who decides if the mother's health is at risk? Of course it's a doctor, right? Nope. The new law also says it doesn't have to be determined or performed by a doctor. So under this law, a woman could go into labor, say she decided a baby would harm her mental health, and request it be killed during delivery. Not fake news. A cleverly worded law that allows women to choose at the last second if they want their baby delivered alive or dead.

You must be so proud.

 

[Hetfield]

Really?
From CBS News, "

New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk

New York state has enacted strong new legal protections for abortion rights. The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.
.......................
So the law changes "life at risk" to "health at risk". But who decides if the mother's health is at risk? Of course it's a doctor, right? Nope. The new law also says it doesn't have to be determined or performed by a doctor. So under this law, a woman could go into labor, say she decided a baby would harm her mental health, and request it be killed during delivery. Not fake news. A cleverly worded law that allows women to choose at the last second if they want their baby delivered alive or dead.

You must be so proud.

First of all I'm not even sure this is real. Second it says if the mothers life is at risk.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[herbu]

First of all I'm not even sure this is real. Second it says if the mothers life is at risk.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Son, I bet you're still blaming the teachers for your poor reading comprehension skills.

Thanks to Kurt. I have a better understanding of the wall issue now. Like Kaepernick, the wall has become a symbol. Original intent, execution and facts don't matter. The wall is supported by conservatives and opposed by liberals. Period. It makes negotiation and resolution more difficult. It elicits pure emotion rather than reason. Evidence is within this thread where highly respected individuals abandon reason and civility. And it brings out the seagulls who poop on everything while contributing nothing.

I suspect a number of current issues today fall into the same category. So when the discussion is emotional rather than rational, where do we go? How does it end? Left and Right views are good, and the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle... but only after discussion and debate. What is the logical conclusion when discussion and debate are not possible?

 

[everettT]

Term limits would be a good start. Take away tenured power. I'm sick of hearing about political wins from both sides. The horrible rhetoric from Washington and the media relating isn't helping people understand the issues. Herbu nailed it about emotions getting in the way of rational discussions based on facts.

 

[Hetfield]

Son, I bet you're still blaming the teachers for your poor reading comprehension skills.

Thanks to Kurt. I have a better understanding of the wall issue now. Like Kaepernick, the wall has become a symbol. Original intent, execution and facts don't matter. The wall is supported by conservatives and opposed by liberals. Period. It makes negotiation and resolution more difficult. It elicits pure emotion rather than reason. Evidence is within this thread where highly respected individuals abandon reason and civility. And it brings out the seagulls who poop on everything while contributing nothing.

I suspect a number of current issues today fall into the same category. So when the discussion is emotional rather than rational, where do we go? How does it end? Left and Right views are good, and the answer usually lies somewhere in the middle... but only after discussion and debate. What is the logical conclusion when discussion and debate are not possible?

First of all this thread isn't about abortion. You brought it up. Back on topic. There is again too much BS in this posting to respond to or care about.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[its phillip]

Really?
From CBS News, "

New York passes law allowing abortions at any time if mother's health is at risk

New York state has enacted strong new legal protections for abortion rights. The new law, signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on Tuesday, safeguards rights laid out in Roe v. Wade and other court rulings, including a provision permitting late-term abortions when a woman's health is endangered, The Associated Press reports. The state's previous law, which had been on the books for nearly 50 years, only permitted abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if a woman's life was at risk.
.......................
So the law changes "life at risk" to "health at risk". But who decides if the mother's health is at risk? Of course it's a doctor, right? Nope. The new law also says it doesn't have to be determined or performed by a doctor. So under this law, a woman could go into labor, say she decided a baby would harm her mental health, and request it be killed during delivery. Not fake news. A cleverly worded law that allows women to choose at the last second if they want their baby delivered alive or dead.

You must be so proud.

What you said - "and now apparently it's OK to abort babies right up to the delivery time, just because you want to."

That is a lie.

Read the law: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2796
§ 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

 

[Hetfield]

What you said - "and now apparently it's OK to abort babies right up to the delivery time, just because you want to."

That is a lie.

Read the law: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2017/s2796
§ 2599-AA. ABORTION. 1. A HEALTH CARE PRACTITIONER LICENSED, CERTIFIED, OR AUTHORIZED UNDER TITLE EIGHT OF THE EDUCATION LAW, ACTING WITHIN HIS OR HER LAWFUL SCOPE OF PRACTICE, MAY PERFORM AN ABORTION WHEN, ACCORDING TO THE PRACTITIONER'S REASONABLE AND GOOD FAITH PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE PATIENT'S CASE: THE PATIENT IS WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR WEEKS FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF PREGNANCY, OR THERE IS AN ABSENCE OF FETAL VIABILITY, OR THE ABORTION IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE PATIENT'S LIFE OR HEALTH.

Don't bother with captain crazy, he is a lost cause.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk