Featured The Bernie Supporters

Nope. Since we're now getting specious, I typed it and posed the question.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

Hmm,
Jesus used this kind of an answer in a similar "specious" question.

Mark 15:2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering said unto him, Thou sayest it.

HankD

 

So NOW you're acknowledging what Jesus said?

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

You are wasting your time, unlike:

Choosing between Hillary and Trump is not moral relativism. It is situational ethics, when you have to choose between two (or more) options but it is not a matter of thinking there is no such thing as absolute good and absolute evil.

Pregnancy by rape is a good example of situational ethics - any choice is unacceptable on the surface but a choice does have to be made, why this is a better example of situational ethics than voting Clinton or Trump. You could advert the latter by simply not voting.

 

Not necessarily but I am using his technique.

HankD

 

Jesus never went against Himself.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

I know. That's why I like His technique.

HankD

 

Funny cause you're not imitating or duplicating it with YOUR comments.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

I'm wondering if it will be record turnout or record sit-out?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

Well, Yaac, do you have no more yaacing a out this one?

 

Well, it was the first post in the series when in effect I said "Thou sayest it".

HankD

 

And thou didest say some stuff.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk

 

Yes, it is situational ethics. But when the word "lesser of" is in play (as in lesser of two evils") by definition it means it is relative to something, so it is also moral relativism.

Not voting for President is my likely choice.

 

Yeah, if you're boiling it down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. it IS a moral relativistic situation, but doing so (or not) is not practicing moral relativism, it's a response involving situational ethics

What I mean is, I think Hillary voters are more inclined to embrace moral relativism, just because her party skews more that way (pro-choice, multiculturalism, egalitarianism) than Trump's does but voting Hillary doesn't necessarily mean you proscribe to moral relativism. And voting for Trump isn't a vote for moral absolution, since the guy is flawed morally, as is Hillary. He's evil, she's evil (fallen) but acknowledging that fact is agreeing that there is such a thing as good and evil and only the absolutionists do that,

And since voting is a right, claiming somebody who doesn't vote doesn't count makes as much sense as saying people who don't own guns don't have 2A rights or people who don't speak out in public don't have 1A rights - not voting is in itself an option of situational ethics and NOT moral relativism, because not voting is agreeing that there is evil and only evil on the ballot and therefore there is good.

On second thought, just forget it, lol.

 

LOL.

HankD

 

What is your favorite card game?

 

Okay, there's a slew of Bernie supporters around here, and it seems like the staunch Democrats (about 60%) are going for Hillary but they're still not so happy about it. The others are split between staying home or going for Trump or third party.

Looks different across the generations - millennials are going to mostly stay home or go third party, gen x is going for one of the two major candidates, and the boomers are going Hillary - the "establishment" attraction seems to increase with age around here,

 

I believe the Bernie supporters are going to decide the election but no one can predict how they will align themselves. Yes I agree most will stay home but the remainder will decide the election IMO.

HankD