Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[billd91]

So because one person is a slime, the whole party is a slime if they don't throw that one person out?

I don't think that's what he's saying. Rather, the voter can't absolve himself from supporting a party and its leadership when he votes for a member of that party. The fact that we don't have the same parliamentary system as many other countries doesn't change the fact that a vote for a particular congressman or senator is also a show of support for the group with which they caucus and its policies.

 

[Umbran]

So because one person is a slime, the whole party is a slime if they don't throw that one person out?

I think you're driving the argument to an extreme.

Both ends - "the whole party is 'slime' if one person is slime," and "the party bears no responsibility for that done in its name" - are unreasonable.

The issue at hand is that there isn't just one Jack. There's *lots* of them. There comes a point where enough of the party holds unacceptable positions that supporting the party is no longer ethical.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think you're driving the argument to an extreme.

Both ends - "the whole party is 'slime' if one person is slime," and "the party bears no responsibility for that done in its name" - are unreasonable.

The issue at hand is that there isn't just one Jack. There's *lots* of them. There comes a point where enough of the party holds unacceptable positions that supporting the party is no longer ethical.

Are you saying we've reached that point with a particular party, or is this a hypothetical based on a counterfactual? I'm now confused, as the original comment that sparked this seemed accusatory. Perhaps it's drifted into speculation or I misunderstood initially, so clarifying this would be appreciated.

If it is a hypothesis, I think it's trivially true (in the logical sense of trivial) that a party that widely supports unpleasant policies benefits from people that agree with the unpleasant policies. How that can be applied to the broader discussion, though, leaves me somewhat uncertain of what premises are being used, it what the point of making that observation is.

 

[Umbran]

Are you saying we've reached that point with a particular party, or is this a hypothetical based on a counterfactual?

I do feel there is a party that I cannot vote for at this time, due to the extreme positions of many of its members, and elements of its platform in general. While it may be hypothetically possible that other parties field individuals who are so bad that I am forced to reconsider, but that scenario seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I do feel there is a party that I cannot vote for at this time, due to the extreme positions of many of its members, and elements of its platform in general. While it may be hypothetically possible that other parties field individuals who are so bad that I am forced to reconsider, but that scenario seems extremely unlikely.

So, it's not a hypothetical, then, you're using it in practice. You are, of course, aware that most of the people that vote for that party feel the exact same way about the party you vote for? What convinces you that you have the correct moral answer?

 

[Kramodlog]

This returns to the fallacy that because I did not decry an action this time, I must support it. I believe this is a major argument used against the depiction of Muslims as supportive of extremist Islam? Why should it apply to conservatives, but not Muslims? NOTE: I do not support this argument against Muslims, I'm only using it for rhetorical purposes.

Muslims are usually born into a faith. A person choses to join the racists of the Republican party.

 

[Kramodlog]

I think that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the "reduction of government" planks of the Republican party. They want to reduce some aspects of government while increasing others. Usually it's military and business spending at the expense of social welfare programs. The net result isn't a reduction of government, but a realigning of it.

Libertarians, on the other hand, want less government, period, and aren't well liked by Republicans.

And there usually is an issue with the interchange of conservative and Republican. I don't mind, and usual assume that the speaker means them interchangeably, even though there are differences and divisions of conservatives and Republicans alike. There is no monolithic block of conservatives or Republicans, but it's often assumed that way.

Speaking to what I perceive is the largest gist of your argument, I'm not arguing that there aren't demonstrably conservative or Republican policies, but that belief in those is not monolithic or religious. Those policies are the middle ground of many subclasses and shouldn't be taken to be dogma for anyone. However, most of the time I see these arguments, dogma is what's being implied, usually in an attempt to dismiss the entire set of political thought on a pretext like failing to argue sufficiently vociferously against presumed racists.

The argument seems ridiculus. It is like critiquing me for saying the NRA is against gun control, because I'm talking to someone who is for gun control and a member of the NRA.

The Republican party has a platform. It has politicians who promote those policies and get elected on those policies by a base that is for those policies. When a person decides to join the Republican party, it choses among other things to be associated with those policies. If some is against those policies, that person is an exception, not the norm. And I wonder what she is doing with the Republican party in the first place.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Muslims are usually born into a faith. A person choses to join the racists of the Republican party.

Right, because no one is born into a social situation that fosters racism, nor is there any racism on the Democrat side.

I've chosen to take your remark as constructively as possible, but frankly it's little better than a broad, insulting generalization. Thankfully, I'm not a Republican, so I'm not personally offended.

The argument seems ridiculus. It is like critiquing me for saying the NRA is against gun control, because I'm talking to someone who is for gun control and a member of the NRA.

The Republican party has a platform. It has politicians who promote those policies and get elected on those policies by a base that is for those policies. When a person decides to join the Republican party, it choses among other things to be associated with those policies. If some is against those policies, that person is an exception, not the norm. And I wonder what she is doing with the Republican party in the first place.

Here's the current Republican Party platform on "Reforming the Government":

Reforming Government to Serve the People

Saving Medicare for Future Generations
Strengthening Medicaid in the States
Security For Those Who Need It: Ensuring Retirement Security
Regulatory Reform: The Key to Economic Growth
Protecting Internet Freedom
A Vision for the Twenty-First Century: Technology, Telecommunications and the Internet
Protecting the Taxpayers: No More “Too Big to Fail”
Judicial Activism: A Threat to the U.S. Constitution
Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service for the Twenty-First Century
Protecting Travelers and their Rights: Reforming the TSA for Security and Privacy
The Rule of Law: Legal Immigration
Honoring Our Relationship with American Indians
Preserving the District of Columbia
Modernizing the Federal Civil Service
America’s Future in Space: Continuing this Quest
Honoring and Supporting Americans in the Territories

Nothing in there about shrinking the size of government. This is easily available on the Republican party website, so there's little excuse in asserting it says something that it doesn't actually say.

ETA: also, you should really judge people and groups on what they do, not what they say. The Republicans may occasionally throw out a smaller government bone to appease some elements of the base, but their actions grow the government.

 

[MechaPilot]

If he wants to be consistent, here, virtually the entire GOP would have to skip out. I'm not being a pro-Democratic Party partisan, I'm just drawing on historically verifiable facts, like how the general tenor of modern GOP policies towards the poor and underprivileged has been at odds with Catholicism for some time. This was made abundantly clear in 2012 when, despite the Church's clashes with Obama, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops called out the Romney/Ryan budget plan as failing to meet the moral criteria of protecting the poor.

Yeah, that's true. Of course, you gotta love how they can give themselves an out by quoting the biblical reference that the poor will always be with us. That's become the default, knee-jerk response from some of the more affluent people that I've met in response to statements about doing more for the poor.

Of course, the real shame of America is our homeless. A large percentage of our homeless are veterans. It's sad-funny to see conservatives talk about supporting our troops in one sentence and then crapping on the poor with their next.

 

[Kramodlog]

Right, because no one is born into a social situation that fosters racism,

And that makes Republican racism ok?

nor is there any racism on the Democrat side.

Heh. That is trying to change the subject with a strawman.

I've chosen to take your remark as constructively as possible, but frankly it's little better than a broad, insulting generalization.

When the Republican party won't try to pander to racists and homophobes, I'll shed a tear to them being unjustly categorized. Honestly, if there are so many Republicans who aren't racist, sexist, homophobes and science deniers, they should take back control of the party. Right now that silent majority isn't in control and it doesn't seem to mind much. It is hard now to find a presidential candidate that doesn't endorse a racist, homophobic or anti-science position.

By all accounts Paul and Carson are brilliant doctors, yet they refused to back vaccines unequivocally. Carson even said that evolution is satanic! http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/09/24/ben_carson_anti_science.html

Jeb Bush wants to black people to feel welcomed in the Republican party. Cool. Black people, or any other minority for that matter, shouldn't back just one political party as they will be taken for granted and won't see their situation improve. In many ways, Democrates talk a lot about black people's condition, but do not do much about it. But then Bush goes into racial stereotypes about "free stuff". http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/25/jeb-bush-free-stuff-mitt-romney-black-voters

So, where is that candidate backed by pro-science Republicans who agree that there is institutional racism in the US and it needs to change because that is a drag on black people's "American Dream"? Where is that candidate who says that birth control pills help combat abortion and lets women get an education and good paying jobs? Where is that candidate that says that people not vaccinating their kids is a public health problem? Or that climate change is a economic and social problem that will only get worse?

Maybe that candidate isn't there this round because there aren't many Republicans who think that. Or care much about science, women and minority issues.

Here's the current Republican Party platform on "Reforming the Government":

Nothing in there about shrinking the size of government. This is easily available on the Republican party website, so there's little excuse in asserting it says something that it doesn't actually say.

Who is against virtue? The thing is, you ignore how they say they will achieve those goals. Cuts, deregulation and privatization are what is proposed, and those go against the stated goals. Judicial activism is funny, as the solution is to nominate more conservative activist judges.

ETA: also, you should really judge people and groups on what they do, not what they say. The Republicans may occasionally throw out a smaller government bone to appease some elements of the base, but their actions grow the government.

What they say is very important. It tells us who they want votes and money from. Do you think we should separate politicians from who they want to get votes and money from?