So the liberal discourse has shifted from "It will be worse under Trump" to "This is morally justifiable because Trump would do something worse"?
I never believed that Trump Derangement Syndrome was a really thing but your comment is making me rethink this position.
That wasn't really my point. What I meant is that what was allowable has shifted, possibly permanently. There's a whole new generation being shown that it's ok to be a criminal.
Legality does not and has never equated to morality. If we're talking about criminality and matters of legality, has the Biden/Harris administration worked furiously to defend and enable Israel to violate international law? When congress invites a war criminal who has an arrest warrant issued for them by The Hague and congress lavishes this figure with dozens of minutes-long applause, does this not signal that criminals are not only permitted by the system by openly and roundly praised by it?
Did we not see mass scale war crimes and human rights violations under Obama/Biden and, obviously, Trump and now under Biden/Harris?
There is no higher level of law than international law. Help me to understand what you're referring to with regards to you concern for condoning criminality.
Better yet, help me to understand why your original comment was dismissive of ethics while your reply seems to be concerned with people being given authorisation to violate ethics? That doesn't seem cogent to me at all; by pronouncing the premature death of ethics are you not tacitly condoning people to abandon the very ethical framework that you are lamenting the abandonment of?
You're speaking in absolutes; I am not.
It's simpler than this, I expect a cheater and lliar to cheat and lie. His main focus being money and own benefits, is going to affect his decisions.
So my main concern is with the, let's call this, initial personal characteristics or the moral core.
When it's thrown into complex decision systems it surely will be bent out of shape, but I can expect general shape to hold.
I mean, you can't half-violate international law. Either you break the law or you don't.
But if you're attempting to refute my claim that legality has never equated with morality then your reply is nothing more than a tactical and rhetorical retreat because if you truly believe that I'm incorrect about this then it should have been an easy matter to provide a counterargument instead of just a negation.
Moreover, you haven't actually answered the questions I posed to you.
It's simpler than this, I expect a cheater and lliar to cheat and lie. His main focus being money and own benefits, is going to affect his decisions.
How does this not apply to someone like Biden or Harris though?
So my main concern is with the, let's call this, initial personal characteristics or the moral core.
When it's thrown into complex decision systems it surely will be bent out of shape, but I can expect general shape to hold.
So the liberal discourse has shifted from "It will be worse under Trump" to "This is morally justifiable because Trump would do something worse"?
I never believed that Trump Derangement Syndrome was a really thing but your comment is making me rethink this position.
That wasn't really my point. What I meant is that what was allowable has shifted, possibly permanently. There's a whole new generation being shown that it's ok to be a criminal.
Legality does not and has never equated to morality. If we're talking about criminality and matters of legality, has the Biden/Harris administration worked furiously to defend and enable Israel to violate international law? When congress invites a war criminal who has an arrest warrant issued for them by The Hague and congress lavishes this figure with dozens of minutes-long applause, does this not signal that criminals are not only permitted by the system by openly and roundly praised by it?
Did we not see mass scale war crimes and human rights violations under Obama/Biden and, obviously, Trump and now under Biden/Harris?
There is no higher level of law than international law. Help me to understand what you're referring to with regards to you concern for condoning criminality.
Better yet, help me to understand why your original comment was dismissive of ethics while your reply seems to be concerned with people being given authorisation to violate ethics? That doesn't seem cogent to me at all; by pronouncing the premature death of ethics are you not tacitly condoning people to abandon the very ethical framework that you are lamenting the abandonment of?
You're speaking in absolutes; I am not. It's simpler than this, I expect a cheater and lliar to cheat and lie. His main focus being money and own benefits, is going to affect his decisions.
So my main concern is with the, let's call this, initial personal characteristics or the moral core.
When it's thrown into complex decision systems it surely will be bent out of shape, but I can expect general shape to hold.
I mean, you can't half-violate international law. Either you break the law or you don't.
But if you're attempting to refute my claim that legality has never equated with morality then your reply is nothing more than a tactical and rhetorical retreat because if you truly believe that I'm incorrect about this then it should have been an easy matter to provide a counterargument instead of just a negation.
Moreover, you haven't actually answered the questions I posed to you.
How does this not apply to someone like Biden or Harris though?
I don't follow.