Kavanaugh Confirmation

#11,451
#11,451
volinbham said:
300 rulings where he was not politically motivated but all the sudden he will be a fierce partisan?

GTFO
Click to expand...
This Dems in this situation act like petulant children who don't get their way. This has never been about whether or not he attempted to rape this woman, its always been about trying to control the narrative to make this man look bad so they can try and find any reason for him not to serve on the SCOTUS. If K isn't confirmed, they will do the same exact thing to whomever Trump nominates next.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol
#11,452
#11,452
NorthDallas40 said:
No!!! It goes to intent of the act!!!

He’s told you multiple times!!!

“End justifies the means” is a back end rationalization for bad behavior and intent up front!!!

It’s freaking obvious!!!
Click to expand...
lollollol (just for you ND)......The end is the intended outcome, or intent.
 
#11,454
#11,454
Orange_Crush said:
It is quite obvious to anyone familiar with Christian scriptures, and the ethics that came from them, iI think? He claims that the ends/result are what makes it moral or immoral, justified or not.

That means that I can try to kill you, but the morality of it changes depending on how good I am at trying to kill you. I can smash your head, trying to kill you, but if I'm too weak and nothing really all that bad happens, it was a moral act. Conversely, justifying by result, if I'm tossing stones over a wall at the dump, not knowing you're there, and accidentally kill you, results-oriented justification says that I am more morally culpable than the weak person who attempted murder.

(We'll forgo a discussion for now on the moral ramifications of negligence in the second example. It sufficed to show the differences between the two moral outlooks.)
Click to expand...
I completely understood your message padre. We are accountable for our actions. That goes to before hand intent not back end outcome. “Did you act with malice in your heart”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#11,455
#11,455
BearCat204 said:
They are, they fall under the same appropriations as we do. Not trying to argue with you, just giving facts to the situation that the FBI isn't shut down and it has no bearing on the investigation.
Click to expand...

I wasnt trying to say they are shut down. just a delay in pay that could and should end up being of no consequence because even if it wasnt signed now, it will probably be signed before they are issued their pay.
 
#11,457
#11,457
Orange_Crush said:
It is quite obvious to anyone familiar with Christian scriptures, and the ethics that came from them, iI think? He claims that the ends/result are what makes it moral or immoral, justified or not.

That means that I can try to kill you, but the morality of it changes depending on how good I am at trying to kill you. I can smash your head, trying to kill you, but if I'm too weak and nothing really all that bad happens, it was a moral act. Conversely, justifying by result, if I'm tossing stones over a wall at the dump, not knowing you're there, and accidentally kill you, results-oriented justification says that I am more morally culpable than the weak person who attempted murder.

(We'll forgo a discussion for now on the moral ramifications of negligence in the second example. It sufficed to show the differences between the two moral outlooks.)
Click to expand...
Answer this.

Is bashing someone's head in with a rock justified (moral) or unjustified (immoral)?
 
#11,458
#11,458
Mick said:
One thing is for sure, If K is confirmed he will have an axe to grind with Dems. Not a chance he will side with them on any issue.
Click to expand...
Based on his demonstrated bench performance thus far I have every reason to believe when Justice Kavanaugh puts on the robes he will take off his partisan opinion and rule according to the law. His professional bench service provides no evidence to the contrary.
 
#11,462
#11,462
luthervol said:
lollollol (just for you ND)......The end is the intended outcome, or intent.
Click to expand...
No. The end is what you use to judge the justification. The motive is your reason for performing a specific act. If you were to read my posts, you would see this by example. If you actually have read my post, I edit. If you were to comprehend my posts, you would see this by example.

You are trying to apply from the wrong end, and upon the wrong level of activity.

For example:

Code: 
Is it immoral to destroy a person's name/reputation/family/career and life via false accusations?

Yes. It is always immoral to do that., It is objectively immoral.

Using ends to justify it:

It is justified to do that immoral act if it keeps another conservative vote off of the bench and rescues R vs W.

One is defining whether something is actually immoral. The other is seeking to excuse something that is objectively immoral (thus the shorthand that the means can't justify themselves and need the results/ends to do it for them.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#11,470
#11,470
Orange_Crush said:
No. The end is what you use to judge the justification. The motive is your reason for performing a specific act. If you were to read my posts, you would see this by example. If you actually have read my post, I edit. If you were to comprehend my posts, you would see this by example.

You are trying to apply from the wrong end, and upon the wrong level of activity.

For example:

Code: 
Is it immoral to destroy a person's name/reputation/family/career and life via false accusations?

Yes. It is always immoral to do that., It is objectively immoral.

Using ends to justify it:

It is justified to do that immoral act if it keeps another conservative vote off of the bench and rescues R vs W.

One is defining whether something is actually immoral. The other is seeking to excuse something that is objectively immoral (thus the shorthand that the means can't justify themselves and need the results/ends to do it for them.)
Click to expand...
I never said the end always justifies the means. I said the end sometimes justifies the means.
The desired end result is what defines motive.
Hitting someone in the head with a brick is the prime example.
 
#11,472
#11,472
luthervol said:
Answer this.

Is bashing someone's head in with a rock justified (moral) or unjustified (immoral)?
Click to expand...
Depends. Firstly who it is. Secondly as long as its done with kindness and mercy in ones heart its ok. But really depends who it is.......
 
#11,475
#11,475
luthervol said:
I never said the end always justifies the means. I said the end sometimes justifies the means.
The desired end result is what defines motive.
Hitting someone in the head with a brick is the prime example.
Click to expand...
The debate is whether the ends ever justify the means, specifically defined as immoral actions (which can't justify themselves) being justified by their results. You were cut to the quick with the accusation that your ethics convict you, so you've been doing gator rolls, floundering to make everyone as guilty as yourself.

You agreed to the word and will of God as the objective standard of the ethics in question. You lost at that moment, and you've been little more than a headless chicken since then. Running around in circles, bleeding profusely, with no head, reason or direction. I'm doing little more than trying to keep you in the sink until you finally stop moving, merely in the effort to keep your noisy demise from messing up the entire kitchen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top