Labor confirm moral cowardice, pander to bigots

[Stark]

Isn't that just part of why he's such a bad thing for the Liberal party? If it was a choice between management and mismanagement like it was for a decade, that's one thing; if its a choice between mismanagment and mismanagement with bigotry, that's something else.

He's just lucky federal Labor has spent the last twenty years sucking. :V

[Alkaloid]

Did you actually look at Abbott's arguments for why he didn't? I think they speak for themselves.

Yes, actually. And I think they were arguments made up after deciding he was going to vote against it in order to justify it. Everything was too perfectly timed and set up to make Labor look as inept as possible otherwise.

What about their own consciences? If desperate, Tony could probably (via the Cardinal) persuade the Pope to excommunicate any Catholics who voted for it. (on the argument that it was necessary to prevent the bill getting through)

He's a pretty ruthless politician, not a cartoon supervillian. He wouldn't take a course of action guaranteed to make every catholic bar the frothing bigots actively hate him, and that act will likely extend to everyone who understands what excommunication actually is as well.

Does Tony Abbott 'have a conscience' or is he just a huge bigot? Maybe he's just trying to win the 'worse than Howard' award.

At this point I think he's already won it, he just isn't in charge so its harder to notice.

[Lusankya]

2- Tony Abbot may be a politician, but by politician's standards he has a conscience. He did offer to support Joe Hockey if he would oppose climate change. (indicating that to him policies are more important then ambitions) Judging from his rhethoric, he would see what Labor is doing as gravely morally wrong

To Tony Abbott, his own personal beliefs are also more important than deciding not to abuse ministerial privilege by blocking women's reproduction options. Someone who doesn't know when to stop letting his personal views interfere with the proper working of the political system has no business being in a position of power.

[Carinthium]

To Tony Abbott, his own personal beliefs are also more important than deciding not to abuse ministerial privilege by blocking women's reproduction options. Someone who doesn't know when to stop letting his personal views interfere with the proper working of the political system has no business being in a position of power.

I was trying to think of a reply to Akalloid first, but I couldn't let this past.

A- How is that an abuse of ministerial privledge?
B- Surely a good politician obeys their conscience? One can infer from that that either you only want politicians with a certain type of viewpoint on every issue in power, or that you want politicians to be even more hypocritical.
C- How did he abuse ministerial privilege?

[Lusankya]

He blocked a drug that was approved by the AMA and shown to be safe and released information about it that was blatantly counterfactual based solely on his religious views. The veto power he has exists for a reason, and there are times when it should be used. Attempting to ban a safe and non-surgical method of allowing women to receive a result that they are already capable of achieving with through far more invasive and time consuming methods is not one of those times.

Politicians should also be required (well, ethically anyway) to take a step back to make sure that their actions aren't merely imposing their religious beliefs on others. If Tony Abbott was trying to impose a law banning people from eating meat on Fridays, because that's the way the Catholic church says people should do things would you still be saying that he was being a good politician for obeying his conscience? Or would you be thinking that maybe even though Tony Abbott thinks that the only way to be ethical is to eat vegetarian on Friday, perhaps he should bloody well recognise that he is serving plenty of non-Catholics who are quite understandably put out by such a law?

Of course, you don't have to trust me that Tony Abbott should be held up to such a standard. In the words of Mr Budgie Smugglers himself:

Of course, we are all influenced by a value system that we hold, but in the end, every decision that a politician makes is, or at least should, in our society be based on the normal sorts of considerations.

"It's got to be publically justifiable; not only justifiable in accordance with a private view; a private belief."

Do you think it's too much of me to ask that Tony Abbott, as a politician should, while being perfectly free to be influenced by the value system he holds, make sure that his decisions are based on "the normal sorts of considerations"? Tony Abbott certainly doesn't think it's too much to ask, and it is thus perfectly reasonable for me to call him out when I believe that he does place too much emphasis on his own value system, while ignoring the "normal sorts of considerations".

[Stark]

Can we stop congratulating Abbott for being such an enormous bigot plz y/n?? If he has a 'conscience' that he sticks to to avoid being 'hypocritical' (and y'know hurting people he hates anyway because he's a bigot) why did he make all those hilarious statements about how the government should have intervened in the Qantas affair? That sounds pretty conservative, small government, deregulatory, and all that and not hypocritical.

Oh wait, he just said it because he's the opposition and needs to score points that aren't 'I'm a fundy shithead' and 'BLACK PEOPLE BOOO!'

I just wish I had one of those posters from last election that flat-out claimed Labor was responsible for boat people. :V

[Lusankya]

Pauline Hanson stuck to her principals too. I guess that makes her a Fantastic PersonTM in Carinthium's book too. Because when congratulating people for sticking to their principals, it doesn't behoove us to actually look at what those principals are. That's why those people who voted against letting the interracial couple attend that church in Kentucky are such fantastic people. Principals.

[mr friendly guy]

Actually its principles. The principAl is your pAl. As I typed that I just envisage Catholic priests being pals. Oh god.

Any way, back on topic, Abbott has a conscience because he sticks to his principles. Ok, well then anyone who sticks to his principles from Milosevic to Hitler would have a conscience. Sorry but thats not the definition of conscience.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conscience

con·science
noun
1. the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action: to follow the dictates of conscience.
2. the complex of ethical and moral principles that controls or inhibits the actions or thoughts of an individual.
3. an inhibiting sense of what is prudent: I'd eat another piece of pie but my conscience would bother me.
4.conscientiousness.
5.Obsolete . consciousness; self-knowledge.

So a racist, homophobic bigot has a conscience. There is indeed a set of principles which governs Abbott's actions, religious, political ideology, opportunism, but ethical and moral isn't the right word for it. Ergo using the word "conscience" to describe a strongly held belief is rhetorical bullshit of the highest order.

[Carinthium]

(Again, Akaloid will have to wait. I'm responding to these points because they are, to put it bluntly, much easier)

He blocked a drug that was approved by the AMA and shown to be safe and released information about it that was blatantly counterfactual based solely on his religious views.

I'm not going to defend a Catholic lying (although if he didn't technically lie then there is a strong theological case for it), so I'll agree that the lying was wrong.

Politicians should also be required (well, ethically anyway) to take a step back to make sure that their actions aren't merely imposing their religious beliefs on others.

Either something is true or false- the idea that factual questions can be subjective is mere nonsense. You make the claim here that people should seperate their religious beliefs from their political actions- comparmentalising them. But if you actually believe that something is true, you should incorporate it into EVERYTHING you do when it is relevant.

Imagine if you lived in a world where Christianity was true (a very, very different world from what we actually have of course). Even if you would oppose God and refuse to obey his commandments, surely you would at least TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT. And if you were a legislator, would you not consider it at the minimum a very reasonable view to pander to the quite literally omnipotent being?

Or would you be thinking that maybe even though Tony Abbott thinks that the only way to be ethical is to eat vegetarian on Friday, perhaps he should bloody well recognise that he is serving plenty of non-Catholics who are quite understandably put out by such a law?

Again, I refer to my hypothetical world. In a world where God exists, God exists- and this is true whatever those who choose to deny it wish to believe. With theologically based confidence that this will reduce the amount of sin and thus the number of people who are going to be TORTURED FOR ALL ETERNITY, would you not want to legislate to stop people being complete idiots? (as they would be in such a universe if they did it without thinking it through)

Do you think it's too much of me to ask that Tony Abbott, as a politician should, while being perfectly free to be influenced by the value system he holds, make sure that his decisions are based on "the normal sorts of considerations"? Tony Abbott certainly doesn't think it's too much to ask, and it is thus perfectly reasonable for me to call him out when I believe that he does place too much emphasis on his own value system, while ignoring the "normal sorts of considerations".

On the contrary- I think Tony Abbott's religiously based decisions reasonable and respectable, and THIS to be the utterly condemnable hypocrisy. My apologies- I didn't know he'd said this.

Can we stop congratulating Abbott for being such an enormous bigot plz y/n?? If he has a 'conscience' that he sticks to to avoid being 'hypocritical' (and y'know hurting people he hates anyway because he's a bigot) why did he make all those hilarious statements about how the government should have intervened in the Qantas affair? That sounds pretty conservative, small government, deregulatory, and all that and not hypocritical.

Oh wait, he just said it because he's the opposition and needs to score points that aren't 'I'm a fundy shithead' and 'BLACK PEOPLE BOOO!'

I just wish I had one of those posters from last election that flat-out claimed Labor was responsible for boat people. :V

If it is hypocritical, then where is the contradictory statement in which Tony Abbott espouses principles to the contrary?

Pauline Hanson stuck to her principals too. I guess that makes her a Fantastic PersonTM in Carinthium's book too. Because when congratulating people for sticking to their principals, it doesn't behoove us to actually look at what those principals are. That's why those people who voted against letting the interracial couple attend that church in Kentucky are such fantastic people. Principals.

Morality is by its nature arbitary- no set of moral principles is woven into the 'fabric of the universe', none comes down from an omnipotent god, and there is no way to get logically from 'is' to 'ought'. Facts may be objective, but ALL moral proclamations are little more then hot air. Unless somebody is condemned by their own rules, how can we condemn them?

So a racist, homophobic bigot has a conscience. There is indeed a set of principles which governs Abbott's actions, religious, political ideology, opportunism, but ethical and moral isn't the right word for it. Ergo using the word "conscience" to describe a strongly held belief is rhetorical bullshit of the highest order.

So you're going to arbitrarily call a few principles 'morally correct'. And how do you get to these principles, hmm? And what about the argument that if Tony Abbott was to be a true and proper Christian he would be obliged to do not only what he does but much, much more?

[mr friendly guy]

Morality is by its nature arbitary- no set of moral principles is woven into the 'fabric of the universe', none comes down from an omnipotent god, and there is no way to get logically from 'is' to 'ought'. Facts may be objective, but ALL moral proclamations are little more then hot air. Unless somebody is condemned by their own rules, how can we condemn them?

Morality is subjective, unlike say gravity, in the sense that if we weren't around gravity would still be, but morality is not. However subjective (at least this particular definition I am using of subjective) /= arbitary.

So you're going to arbitrarily call a few principles 'morally correct'.

I don't think a retard like you knows what arbitrarily means. You have no grounds to judge how I came to the conclusion one's morality is correct when you didn't even ask how I did it, until after you already decided it was arbitrarily.

Hint I didn't use "use an unreasonable, unsupported, capricious, or subject to my judgment without restriction, or contingent soley upon my discretion", which is what arbitrary actually means. You know, when I was a kid I like to use big words in my creative writing too, to show the teachers how smart I was. At least I knew how to use those words in the proper context, but then you are too stupid to know what conscience means, so this is hardly a surprise. Masters of rhetoric and word games, but little substance, eh?

And how do you get to these principles, hmm?

Reason. The same way ethicists, our Emperor etc use when we argue what is ethical.

And what about the argument that if Tony Abbott was to be a true and proper Christian he would be obliged to do not only what he does but much, much more?

What has that got to do with my point? Absolutely nothing.

Now here is one for you genius, but I know you are going to chicken out. Lets define arbitrary as subject to one's discretion, because thats essentially what you accuse me of. If morality is arbitrary, then saying Hitler and Bin Laden are men of conscience for carrying out their beliefs, IS AS CORRECT as saying, oh I don't know, Superman is a man of conscience for standing for his belief. Yes or No, and say it out loud so there is no ambiguity.

Edit - BTW Carinthium do you think racism and homophobia is morally correct, because you apparently consider a statement saying they are immoral as "arbitrary." But I know you aren't going to answer this question until you grow some balls, which will be like.... never.

[Lusankya]

So Carinthium, since you find all religiously-based decisions to be reasonable and respectable, would you then approve of a Jehovah's Witness surgeon who refused to give patients blood transfusions because blood transfusion was against her religious beliefs? Or do you believe that a JW doctor who held such beliefs should either have her medical license removed (if she actually did refuse to give a blood transfusion when it was necessary), or that she should go into a different line of work where she was not forced to make decisions where the ethical responsibilities involved in doing her job properly did not conflict with her religious beliefs?

If you do think that the doctor in the above example should either have her license to practise medicine revoked, or should move into a different line of work, why then do you hold the people responsible for running the country (which would affect far more people) to a lower standard than that of a doctor? And of course, if you think it's perfectly fine for a doctor to refuse to perform life-saving procedures because of their religious beliefs, I would certainly like to hear your justification for it.

On the contrary- I think Tony Abbott's religiously based decisions reasonable and respectable, and THIS to be the utterly condemnable hypocrisy. My apologies- I didn't know he'd said this.

I take it that you, then, are unfamiliar with the idea of "compromise" then. Let's look at an example of how checking to see that one's actions are justifiable according to "normal considerations" might actually not be hypocritical and more along the lines of something obviously unfamiliar to you, called "dealing with reality".

Let's say that Tony Abbott does want to turn Australia into Popeland*. If he ran on a policy platform of "I'm going to turn everything Catholic", then he would sound like a crazy person and not get elected, and thus would not be able to affect policy enough to even turn things a little bit Catholic. Do you realise how stupid you sound when you are decrying as hypocritical a strategy that a) demonstrates that Tony Abbott is at least making an effort to represent all his constituents, including those who do not share the same beliefs as him** and b) is the only strategy that is likely to be effective in helping Tony Abbott to get any of his beliefs encoded into law? What next, are you going to call everyone in the entire world a hypocrite because at sometime they made a compromise about something, because they believed that in the long-term it would help to fulfil other long term social/moral goals. Hell, I go to mass with my boyfriend's family when I visit them, even though I'm an atheist, because I think that making his mother happy is more important than making some confrontational moral stance against organised religion. UTTERLY CONDEMNABLE HYPOCRISY.


*He doesn't, and if he did I would actually find him to be a far less repulsive individual, since the Vatican actually supports social welfare and the environment and non-whites and other stuff that Tony Abbott hates. I'm just using this as a hypothetical here.
**AKA "Doing his damned job".

[Korto]

Ahh! This argument again! Carinthium, I'm actually on your side, unfortunately I'm a poor debater, and rapidly tire of the exercise, so don't expect too much help.
Lusankya, yes, I believe following your conscience is doing what you believe is the right thing to do. Your JW surgeon should never have taken the job, as she would have known that the job comes with its own moral guidelines, in conflict with hers, and in taking the job despite not being willing to follow those guidelines she was lying, which I don't think is moral for a JW. Yes, she should have her license removed, as with anyone who lied on their application, and can't do the job as described.
If Hitler's honest beliefs were that Jews and Gays were destroying Germany, and had to be destroyed to save the Fatherland, then he was following his own conscience in killing them. Well, bully for him. Hooray for following your conscience. My conscience states he was a dangerous psychopath and the world is well rid of him.

Lusankya, the job you accept being in Government is not to do what the majority want, but what you believe is best for the country (it's not quite that black and white, but nevermind). Doing what the majority wants just wins you the election. If Abbot believed banning the abortion pill was best for the country, then he was following his conscience as a member of government to ban it, the fact this belief was formed by his religious beliefs is neither here nor there.
On the other hand, as the JW surgeon, if the job as Health minister entails following just the physical, scientifically provable treatment path, he broke that morality. He maybe couldn't have predicted having to make the call when he took the job (although he probably could, the testing and application takes some time), but it would be a conflict of morality, and he should have stepped back out of it.

Abbot is a hypocrite, of course. I suggest all powerful politicians are. His act in stopping off-shore processing, despite the fact he wants it (but why does he want it?), was pure lying opportunism. The principle is simple, you can only carry out your principles when in government, therefore suspend your principles until in government. Not that principles get carried out too often when in government anyway, because that may lose you government (eg Work Choices). That's why refugees are treated the way they are by both sides, after all. Gillard is a hypocrite (the "Real Julia" ). Does anyone believe she would have passed the carbon tax if the Greens weren't holding an axe at her neck?
In the same way if a Labour minister did cross the floor, the chance of them being dumped is basically nil. Kevin's still there, after his antics.
Turnbull may be the least hypocritical of the major two parties, and he was an investment banker.

Finally, yes, I do believe politicians should govern according to their conscience. Mind you, I also believe when running for office, they should plainly and completely show their character, so people know what their conscience is. I wont hold my breath.

[Stark]

Should I apologise that people care more about actual real hardships or discrimination than wanking off to 'ethics' or 'theology' or whatever?

At least now I know why this is one of the most authoritarian (and certianly most bigoted) countries in the west. Its you guys, cheering people like Abbott on and patting yourselves on the back for being smart.

[Korto]

Stark, if you read the above post and think I'm cheering the bastard, you need your eyes checked. Whether he was following his conscience or not, I'm not cheering Hitler, either.

[Stark]

Bleh I never quote properly. Too much quick reply.

I'm responding to the earlier ideas that there is some inherent 'moral' value in people following their nose, even when this results in measurable negative consequences. I don't give two shits about Tony Abbott as a person - he exists to me solely as a machine that makes policies, and any attempt to 'justify' them in reference to his lunacy or being abused by priests or whatever is meaningless to me.

But I'm sure in a few years we'll all know how great it is that Abbott is so 'honest'.

[Ford Prefect]

2- The Australian Labor Party has a policy that any candidate who crosses the floor is kicked out.

Might I just say that this is fucking ridiculous?

No, you may not. Party solidarity doesn't mean that there is literally no opportunity for dissent within the ranks of the party, just that the dissent happens in private. At least theoretically, every policy and position presented by a given political party in Australia will be the result of intense debate behind closed doors, and individual members will be able to voice their concerns to the frontbenchers. But once a position has been decided upon within the party room, that position will be outwardly supported by all members, as it is consider important to show the Australian people the unified, purposeful nature of the party.

This is not to say that there are no issues with this system, but they are more deeply structural than 'it's bad that you can't cross the floor'.

[Carinthium]

Yes, actually. And I think they were arguments made up after deciding he was going to vote against it in order to justify it. Everything was too perfectly timed and set up to make Labor look as inept as possible otherwise.

You make a good point, so I'll concede this and thus the argument.

He's a pretty ruthless politician, not a cartoon supervillian. He wouldn't take a course of action guaranteed to make every catholic bar the frothing bigots actively hate him, and that act will likely extend to everyone who understands what excommunication actually is as well.

O.K- maybe I was being too generous to Tony Abbott here- I was acting under the assumption he would follow his conscience.

At this point I think he's already won it, he just isn't in charge so its harder to notice.

If we are to accept the definition of bigot commonly used on this site, this is probably true. I therefore won't dispute it.

I don't think a retard like you knows what arbitrarily means. You have no grounds to judge how I came to the conclusion one's morality is correct when you didn't even ask how I did it, until after you already decided it was arbitrarily.

Hint I didn't use "use an unreasonable, unsupported, capricious, or subject to my judgment without restriction, or contingent soley upon my discretion", which is what arbitrary actually means. You know, when I was a kid I like to use big words in my creative writing too, to show the teachers how smart I was. At least I knew how to use those words in the proper context, but then you are too stupid to know what conscience means, so this is hardly a surprise. Masters of rhetoric and word games, but little substance, eh?

No matter what your moral principles are, I'm pretty sure I could use the children's game of asking "Why?", then whatever your answer asking "Why?" and so on. Simple though it is, I would eventually get back to premises that you can't demonstrate. Those are arbitrary, therefore your entire posistion is arbitrary.

I admit that due to my background I'm used to using the theological definition of conscience, in which a 'defective conscience' (to use their terminology) is considered to still be a conscience. This posistion does, however, have going for it that both come from the exact same part of the brain. In most cases, the only difference is what beliefs a person has been indoctrinated with.

Reason. The same way ethicists, our Emperor etc use when we argue what is ethical.

See above.

What has that got to do with my point? Absolutely nothing.

Now here is one for you genius, but I know you are going to chicken out. Lets define arbitrary as subject to one's discretion, because thats essentially what you accuse me of. If morality is arbitrary, then saying Hitler and Bin Laden are men of conscience for carrying out their beliefs, IS AS CORRECT as saying, oh I don't know, Superman is a man of conscience for standing for his belief. Yes or No, and say it out loud so there is no ambiguity.

Edit - BTW Carinthium do you think racism and homophobia is morally correct, because you apparently consider a statement saying they are immoral as "arbitrary." But I know you aren't going to answer this question until you grow some balls, which will be like.... never.

Yes- it is true. Once one embraces a set of arbitary beliefs, one can condemn any of these groups as enemies. However, assuming for the sake of argument that neither Hitler, nor Bin Laden, nor Superman did anything hypocritical (which I find highly unlikely in reality), then yes- they are all worthy of respect. Not being a hypocrite is, for a human or a human-like being, PRETTY DAMN HARD.

So Carinthium, since you find all religiously-based decisions to be reasonable and respectable, would you then approve of a Jehovah's Witness surgeon who refused to give patients blood transfusions because blood transfusion was against her religious beliefs? Or do you believe that a JW doctor who held such beliefs should either have her medical license removed (if she actually did refuse to give a blood transfusion when it was necessary), or that she should go into a different line of work where she was not forced to make decisions where the ethical responsibilities involved in doing her job properly did not conflict with her religious beliefs?

There is the key difference in this case that a Catholic or Jehovahs Witness might feel compelled to go into politics to save the aborted children or other major things. However, as I understand it there would be little issue in most places- assuming Jehovahs Witness theology is like mainstream Christian theology, they could just stand aside and let others do it.

I take it that you, then, are unfamiliar with the idea of "compromise" then. Let's look at an example of how checking to see that one's actions are justifiable according to "normal considerations" might actually not be hypocritical and more along the lines of something obviously unfamiliar to you, called "dealing with reality".

Let's say that Tony Abbott does want to turn Australia into Popeland*. If he ran on a policy platform of "I'm going to turn everything Catholic", then he would sound like a crazy person and not get elected, and thus would not be able to affect policy enough to even turn things a little bit Catholic. Do you realise how stupid you sound when you are decrying as hypocritical a strategy that a) demonstrates that Tony Abbott is at least making an effort to represent all his constituents, including those who do not share the same beliefs as him** and b) is the only strategy that is likely to be effective in helping Tony Abbott to get any of his beliefs encoded into law? What next, are you going to call everyone in the entire world a hypocrite because at sometime they made a compromise about something, because they believed that in the long-term it would help to fulfil other long term social/moral goals. Hell, I go to mass with my boyfriend's family when I visit them, even though I'm an atheist, because I think that making his mother happy is more important than making some confrontational moral stance against organised religion. UTTERLY CONDEMNABLE HYPOCRISY.

In Catholicism, dissimulation is permissible but it is a sin to outright lie. It is never justified for a Catholic to do evil in the attempt to achieve good. Tony Abbott might have implied his view was such, but to outright say it would be unjustified no matter how much good it did.

Should I apologise that people care more about actual real hardships or discrimination than wanking off to 'ethics' or 'theology' or whatever?

At least now I know why this is one of the most authoritarian (and certianly most bigoted) countries in the west. Its you guys, cheering people like Abbott on and patting yourselves on the back for being smart.

Citation needed.

I'm responding to the earlier ideas that there is some inherent 'moral' value in people following their nose, even when this results in measurable negative consequences. I don't give two shits about Tony Abbott as a person - he exists to me solely as a machine that makes policies, and any attempt to 'justify' them in reference to his lunacy or being abused by priests or whatever is meaningless to me.

But I'm sure in a few years we'll all know how great it is that Abbott is so 'honest'.

The truth is, I'm simply too moral to countenance trying to turn anybody into a hypocrite or condemning them for not being one. If you don't like Tony Abbott's views, ban Catholics from politics (or advocate such, at least!).

[Bakustra]

The truth is, I'm simply too moral to countenance trying to turn anybody into a hypocrite or condemning them for not being one. If you don't like Tony Abbott's views, ban Catholics from politics (or advocate such, at least!).

This is either blind hatred or a gigantic "no TRUE Catholic..." argument. Because there are plenty of "bad" Catholics in the world who lie, are OK with legal abortions, think that homosexual intercourse is not a sin, etc., and these probably include a significant proportion of Australian Catholics, just like they include significant proportions of American Catholics, and British Catholics, and French Catholics, and German Catholics, and indeed throughout most of the first world. They are fewer in more impoverished countries, but they're still there. So I don't see how "Tony Abbott is a terrible man" implies "Ban Catholics from politics" as the best solution.

[Carinthium]

How are you meant to be a Catholic when you ignore the Pope? These things are CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. I'm not denying such people exist- they fall into the 'hypocrites' category. Before you try Argument Ad Populorum on me, I should point out that the issue here is one of Catholic theology and you should check it up before we continue this argument.

[Bakustra]

How are you meant to be a Catholic when you ignore the Pope? These things are CATHOLIC DOCTRINE. I'm not denying such people exist- they fall into the 'hypocrites' category. Before you try Argument Ad Populorum on me, I should point out that the issue here is one of Catholic theology and you should check it up before we continue this argument.

Excommunicated individuals are still Catholics, and the only thing on that list that gets you a Latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication would be getting an abortion performed on your own fetus. I don't think that you understand how Catholicism works- people aren't kicked out of the Catholic Church for lying, they go to confession to beg forgiveness, which is generally absolved in exchange for acts of penance. I can count the number of Masses I've attended on my fingers and I know this. You have to specifically renounce the Catholic Church in order to count as having left it, generally, or else become part of a schismatic/heretical group.

This is literally the argument used against JFK, by the way. "Catholics have to obey the Pope, therefore he'd surrender the USA to the Papists!", only here you're using it as an attempt to ban large portions of your country from holding public office, you prejudicial fuck.

[Stark]

The truth is, I'm simply too moral to countenance trying to turn anybody into a hypocrite or condemning them for not being one. If you don't like Tony Abbott's views, ban Catholics from politics (or advocate such, at least!).

You are a fucking RIOT. Are you aware that you can hold religious views without allowing them to colour your performance in public roles, y/n?

Don't bother answering. Dont' stop patting yourself on the back either. Better to be racist than not be racist, that is solid gone.

[Lusankya]

I wonder if Carninthium is aware that Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey are both Catholic too, and nobody ever bitches about them for being Catholic, because they doesn't try to force it down people's throats the way Tony Abbott does. I never knew before that "I don't like Tony Abbott" = "Ban all Catholics".

Also, Compromise = Do evil in order to good. Carinthium really does have no idea what it really means. It's like he's never had two moral principles, such as "do not lie" and "do not let Hitler kill the Jews in my attic" conflict with each other, and been forced to compromise on one in order to uphold the other.

Carthinium, are you realise that when making legislation, you don't just regulate against all immorality. The considerations you have to make apart from "Do I believe that people should stop performing this action" include things like whether or not the legislation will be effective, whether or not banning a certain action causes more harm to come to people in the community*, whether or not you can actually get other people in parliament to agree to pass the bill and so on. One can be a good Catholic in parliament without forcing every little bit of Catholic doctrine down people's throats. Tony Abbott just does a poor job of that, and takes advantage of the privileges afforded him as a Minister to do so.

*Divorce law is a good case of this. While one might oppose divorce in general, one can also support having divorce easily available for abused spouses, and believe that an increase in the divorce rate amongst couples that could work things out is a fair price to pay.

[Carinthium]

Excommunicated individuals are still Catholics, and the only thing on that list that gets you a Latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication would be getting an abortion performed on your own fetus. I don't think that you understand how Catholicism works- people aren't kicked out of the Catholic Church for lying, they go to confession to beg forgiveness, which is generally absolved in exchange for acts of penance. I can count the number of Masses I've attended on my fingers and I know this. You have to specifically renounce the Catholic Church in order to count as having left it, generally, or else become part of a schismatic/heretical group.

This is literally the argument used against JFK, by the way. "Catholics have to obey the Pope, therefore he'd surrender the USA to the Papists!", only here you're using it as an attempt to ban large portions of your country from holding public office, you prejudicial fuck.

The difference is that an excommunicated individual still believes the tenets of the Catholic faith- the individuals we are discussing do not. One tenet is papal infallibility on matters of faith and morals- anotheri s the authority of the Church.

You are a fucking RIOT. Are you aware that you can hold religious views without allowing them to colour your performance in public roles, y/n?

Don't bother answering. Dont' stop patting yourself on the back either. Better to be racist than not be racist, that is solid gone.

I am perfectly aware of the concept- I have NEVER, however, seen arguments to establish why it should be the case. If we take the tenets of Catholicism as facts (ad argumendum), we come logically to the conclusion that it can't be.

In addition, your argument is partially straw man- it would be more accurate to describe me as neutral on racism (that is, being prejudiced against races as opposed to believing false facts about them) when it doesn't involve questions of hypocrisy.

I wonder if Carninthium is aware that Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey are both Catholic too, and nobody ever bitches about them for being Catholic, because they doesn't try to force it down people's throats the way Tony Abbott does. I never knew before that "I don't like Tony Abbott" = "Ban all Catholics".

I genuinely didn't know Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey were Catholics- given that, I couldn't criticise them for it.

Also, Compromise = Do evil in order to good. Carinthium really does have no idea what it really means. It's like he's never had two moral principles, such as "do not lie" and "do not let Hitler kill the Jews in my attic" conflict with each other, and been forced to compromise on one in order to uphold the other.

In the real world, I AM willing to do evil in order to achieve good. However, this violates a BASIC MORAL TENET of Catholicism, and Saint Paul specifically denounces it in the Bible.

Carthinium, are you realise that when making legislation, you don't just regulate against all immorality. The considerations you have to make apart from "Do I believe that people should stop performing this action" include things like whether or not the legislation will be effective, whether or not banning a certain action causes more harm to come to people in the community*, whether or not you can actually get other people in parliament to agree to pass the bill and so on. One can be a good Catholic in parliament without forcing every little bit of Catholic doctrine down people's throats. Tony Abbott just does a poor job of that, and takes advantage of the privileges afforded him as a Minister to do so.

The Pope has made it quite clear that whilst Catholics can support bills which improve but do not fix the situation (from a Catholic moral viewpoint), he has also made it clear that they obliged to be fully honest about their viewpoints- and that they are obliged to accept the Church's moral viewpoint on many issues, such as abortion and divorce. Tony Abbott's public statements are incompatible with the claim that he has done both.

*Divorce law is a good case of this. While one might oppose divorce in general, one can also support having divorce easily available for abused spouses, and believe that an increase in the divorce rate amongst couples that could work things out is a fair price to pay.

Catholicism already has a solution for this- in some circumstances, spouses can be sent away without a formal divorce. It would reasonable for Tony Abbott to support that.

[mr friendly guy]

If Hitler's honest beliefs were that Jews and Gays were destroying Germany, and had to be destroyed to save the Fatherland, then he was following his own conscience in killing them. Well, bully for him. Hooray for following your conscience. My conscience states he was a dangerous psychopath and the world is well rid of him.

The problem is he holds that following your conscience is intrinsically good no matter what the outcome is. This is logically indefensible because when you have two people "following their conscience" but with opposite agendas, the whole "good" part comes apart due to violation of the law of non contradiction.

No matter what your moral principles are, I'm pretty sure I could use the children's game of asking "Why?", then whatever your answer asking "Why?" and so on. Simple though it is, I would eventually get back to premises that you can't demonstrate. Those are arbitrary, therefore your entire posistion is arbitrary.

So by that logic your opposing position is also arbitrary, because I'm pretty sure I could use the children's game of asking "Why?", then whatever your answer asking "Why?" and so on. So why ridicule an opposing position for being arbitrary given that is just as arbitrary as your own? In fact why bother arguing your position at all, since by your preconceived definitions, all moral positions are EQUALLY arbitrary?

But we both know the reason you do this. You want the proverbial cake, and want to eat it too? You want to dismiss an opposing viewpoint on the grounds that its arbitrary, but that pseudologic conveniently doesn't get applied to your own viewpoint. Its only when people dissect your position, and push and prod, that the "logic" of your arguments fall apart.

However I will play along with your silly "Why" game. After reaching all the whys about moral code, it comes back to "maximising human happiness" as the reason for moral code. Thats human, refering to plural, not singular. Going on with why, the next step is to say human happiness is good. This can be demonstrated by observation. So the premise can be demonstrated. However if you disagree that human happiness is good, then say it now.

You might then ask, why are we happy. The answer is that it could be any number of reasons, from because of biochemistry in our brains, or we are secretly hooked up to a matrix type environment and the computer makes us happy. However, whatever the reason its irrelevant to why happiness is good, because the moral code will look to maximising happiness irregardless of what the cause of happiness is. So your perpetual asking of "why" gets broken because its no longer relevant to the first question of what makes a particular moral code superior to the other. An adult being able to answer riddles in a children's game, WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK THAT?

Yes- it is true. Once one embraces a set of arbitary beliefs, one can condemn any of these groups as enemies. However, assuming for the sake of argument that neither Hitler, nor Bin Laden, nor Superman did anything hypocritical (which I find highly unlikely in reality), then yes- they are all worthy of respect. Not being a hypocrite is, for a human or a human-like being, PRETTY DAMN HARD.

I love how you immediately add a set of disclaimers to this. I will make it easy for you. Hitler had a set of beliefs which are anti Jewish. He clearly carried his actions in accordance with it. In this particular set of belief, there is no hypocrisy. Thanks for playing.

Now I expect you withdrawal of support for Tony Abbott since he is hypocritical in his beliefs. You remember that story about the son that he believed he had out of wedlock that turned out not to be his? Clearly he at least engage in premarital sex, thus being a hypocrite. When can I get your concession?

In the real world, I AM willing to do evil in order to achieve good.

In the real world, I AM willing to do evil in order to achieve good.

In the real world, I AM willing to do evil in order to achieve good.

That just speaks for itself. What an ethically bankrupt dipshit we have here. Oh wait, he supports a man who shoved around sex offenders to protect them from secular authorities. No surprise about his ethical stance there.

[Carinthium]

The problem is he holds that following your conscience is intrinsically good no matter what the outcome is. This is logically indefensible because when you have two people "following their conscience" but with opposite agendas, the whole "good" part comes apart due to violation of the law of non contradiction.

No I don't- I simply consider being hypocritical a sufficently great evil that this sort of thing pales in comparison.

So by that logic your opposing position is also arbitrary, because I'm pretty sure I could use the children's game of asking "Why?", then whatever your answer asking "Why?" and so on. So why ridicule an opposing position for being arbitrary given that is just as arbitrary as your own? In fact why bother arguing your position at all, since by your preconceived definitions, all moral positions are EQUALLY arbitrary?

But we both know the reason you do this. You want the proverbial cake, and want to eat it too? You want to dismiss an opposing viewpoint on the grounds that its arbitrary, but that pseudologic conveniently doesn't get applied to your own viewpoint. Its only when people dissect your position, and push and prod, that the "logic" of your arguments fall apart.

Yes, my viewpoint does come down to my emotional sentiments, as do all. However, if we are to have morality at all (if you want to argue for dismissing morality alltogether I'll hear you out) the question comes up of how we can condemn anybody. The answer- if by their own moral logic they condemn themselves.

However I will play along with your silly "Why" game. After reaching all the whys about moral code, it comes back to "maximising human happiness" as the reason for moral code. Thats human, refering to plural, not singular. Going on with why, the next step is to say human happiness is good. This can be demonstrated by observation. So the premise can be demonstrated. However if you disagree that human happiness is good, then say it now.

Inherently good? Humans want happiness- THAT is what can be demonstrated by observation. But in what way, unless you are to arbitarily define 'good' can you get from it that human happiness is 'inherently' good?

You might then ask, why are we happy. The answer is that it could be any number of reasons, from because of biochemistry in our brains, or we are secretly hooked up to a matrix type environment and the computer makes us happy. However, whatever the reason its irrelevant to why happiness is good, because the moral code will look to maximising happiness irregardless of what the cause of happiness is. So your perpetual asking of "why" gets broken because its no longer relevant to the first question of what makes a particular moral code superior to the other. An adult being able to answer riddles in a children's game, WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK THAT?

So the logic of your posistion is to forcibly put everybody into an illusion world (once the technology exists) and pump them with drugs? Even if human lives are shortened, happiness will be maximised. Sadly, I suspect you don't embrace that.

I love how you immediately add a set of disclaimers to this. I will make it easy for you. Hitler had a set of beliefs which are anti Jewish. He clearly carried his actions in accordance with it. In this particular set of belief, there is no hypocrisy. Thanks for playing.

It's not that hard for me to attack Hitler based on the logic of his own posistion- at least in minor things. He was too lazy. He squandered Germany's interests by misinterpreting the world situation (there is nothing in his posistion which calls for self-delusion). He spent too much time building model cities and not enough on actual planning.

Even ignoring that, however, I do not embrace your argument ad Hitlerum. To the extent Hitler was truely not a hypocrite, I respect him for it.

Now I expect you withdrawal of support for Tony Abbott since he is hypocritical in his beliefs. You remember that story about the son that he believed he had out of wedlock that turned out not to be his? Clearly he at least engage in premarital sex, thus being a hypocrite. When can I get your concession?

He didn't necessarily have the same set of beliefs THEN. I PARTIALLY concede in that Tony Abbott is clearly hypocritical- however, I still do not embrace the claim that we should encourage him to be MORE hypocritical.

That just speaks for itself. What an ethically bankrupt dipshit we have here. Oh wait, he supports a man who shoved around sex offenders to protect them from secular authorities. No surprise about his ethical stance there.

In the real world, I AM NOT A CATHOLIC. Back when I WAS a Christian, I was not willing to do evil in order to achieve good- but that was on religious grounds. Since I am not a Christian, I am willing to do so.