Birds of a feather.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...morris-pleads-guilty

>>>He also became a spiritual adviser to Donald Trump. He joined the White House spiritual advisory committee during the first Trump presidency and was part of a campaign to mobilize evangelical voters for him in last year’s presidential campaign.

Trump also visited Gateway church in 2020 where he praised Morris and his senior team as “great people with a great reputation”.<<<<

It's not just children these Christian Nationalists are molesting.

They are molesting the whole country and its foundations.

Avowed Christians and non-Christians have been engaging in sexual acts with minors for millennia. It is not, nor has it ever been, a good thing. There is no doubt in my mind that this behavior is often associated with some sort of religious environment (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, or whatever) but not always. Nonetheless, all will point fingers and exclaim with glee, "Look what they do!", while ignoring their own backyard.
Now, I truly believe that Donald Trump is just about as religious as the average alley cat. I believe he chooses his associates according to how well they tell him what he wants to hear. Is Trump then guilty by association? I don't see it. As satisfying as news like this is for the lefties, it's really just a story about a weasel in a church and has little to do with Trump. Regards, Bill

And if he raped a child…he should be hung.

Genesis 3:1, Satan appeared as a snake.

That a person appears as a man of God, a Christian or any kind of spiritual leader certainly doesn't mean they are.

In our daily life all of us here are surrounded by Americans that profess to be patriotic, faithful, loyal, possessing the, "Fruits of the Spirit", honest, God Fearing citizens and they demonstrate the opposite.

It's disappointing to read about these demons that walk amongst us but not surprising.

8 have been thinking for awhile now that we are surrounded by evil. If you want to call it sin or satanic or Satan and his demons ok, i don't know, regardless I think evil is with us and its goal is destruction. Evil isn't trying to win or conquer, evil isn't interested in adding to its ranks, 8t just wants to destroy.

So in the case above evil destroyed. Evil got to the perpetrator, their victims, the perpetrators family and friends, the victims family and friends the church congregation and on. Evil d8dnt win, its no stronger than before, there's no medal won or territory gained, it just destroyed.

Scott, I read your post with - what's the right word - trepidation, angst, anxiousness, dismay - I don't know. Nothing seems to fit.

Assuming there is a God, snakes are God's creatures too.

There are charlatans aplenty, for sure. IMO, a person can be a charlatan or molester and a true believer at the same time. There are plenty of examples.

And, "spiritual leader" in the Trump WH, specifically for Trump, is a farce. One can be a token spiritual leader with no one to lead.

I'll just say it plain. The word "evil" implies the other words you used, such as sin, satanic, Satan, demons, evil spirits.

That's why I don't use the word "evil" often. I believe there is no such things as Satan, demons, evil spirits, etc. I think they are figments to explain something when there are secular explanations, ignored.

You are describing justice rendered by the secular rule of law in religious terms.

Satan didn't cause the crime, nor did God remedy it. The secular rule of law prevailed in this one instance, as it is designed to do - by man.

Your thinking and beliefs show the conflation of church and state, clearly.

This deep end stuff is exactly why the Founders made the constitution secular.

I think it's sad and disturbing that many people have no other way of relating to this other than through a religious lens. I also think that's a root problem with many ailments in the country especially since the founding principles, per the constitution, is secular, intentionally.

Bill and Lane are both completely right.

I am so glad we can all agree on the heinous nature of the charges.

I'm more interested in hearing about how this fucking pervert was ever a trump "spiritual advisor"

Just one of those trump things.....

Mike,

Grow up. I'm Catholic and while I never saw any abuse and none of the priests I ever relied on were guilty of these things, to my knowledge, if they were I could hardly be blamed for it, which is what you are trying to do.

quote:

if they were I could hardly be blamed for it

WTF!!! Do you have a guilt complex?

You must be projecting.

Blaming you for being Catholic when there have been examples of priests abusing children, boys in particular - connecting those dots - is ridiculous.

My guess is that you think that way. No fault of Mike.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
I am so glad we can all agree on the heinous nature of the charges.

I'm more interested in hearing about how this fucking pervert was ever a trump "spiritual advisor"

Just one of those trump things.....

Maybe. I don't know the details and don't want to.

But again, as to being a Trump adviser, Satan appeared as M.E. mentioned, a creation of God.
Wolf in sheep's clothing?


Anymore what comes out of a person's mouth is meaningless. "I'll be there by 8am!" "I'd never steal from work!". "I'm a man of God!".


Telling the truth, being honest and a man of integrity and honor is out of fashion from the top, ( Trump,) down to the littlest person.

We now consider it normal to lie about gender, sexual attraction, aspirations, goals, ethics, standards, how much you help the poor and what's for dinner.

The smallest of this person's sins was to lie about being a man of God instead of telling the truth about being a pedophile.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Scott, I read your post with - what's the right word - trepidation, angst, anxiousness, dismay - I don't know. Nothing seems to fit.

Assuming there is a God, snakes are God's creatures too.

There are charlatans aplenty, for sure. IMO, a person can be a charlatan or molester and a true believer at the same time. There are plenty of examples.

And, "spiritual leader" in the Trump WH, specifically for Trump, is a farce. One can be a token spiritual leader with no one to lead.

I'll just say it plain. The word "evil" implies the other words you used, such as sin, satanic, Satan, demons, evil spirits.

That's why I don't use the word "evil" often. I believe there is no such things as Satan, demons, evil spirits, etc. I think they are figments to explain something when there are secular explanations, ignored.

You are describing justice rendered by the secular rule of law in religious terms.

Satan didn't cause the crime, nor did God remedy it. The secular rule of law prevailed in this one instance, as it is designed to do - by man.

Your thinking and beliefs show the conflation of church and state, clearly.

This deep end stuff is exactly why the Founders made the constitution secular.

I think it's sad and disturbing that many people have no other way of relating to this other than through a religious lens. I also think that's a root problem with many ailments in the country especially since the founding principles, per the constitution, is secular, intentionally.

Get over yourself. The coin says, "In God we Trust".

Most of your above is nonsense. No, you cannot be a charlatan and a true believer. A sinner and true believer yes.

Consider our moose. Think about the defense a mamma moose puts up when her calf is attacked. The moose are God's creation, the mooses defense of their offspring in God's creation. Nature. Natural and instinct.

I'm afraid you aren't going to be able to twist yourself in loops confusing enough to be able to explain pedophiles as anything other than evil.

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Mike,

Grow up. I'm Catholic and while I never saw any abuse and none of the priests I ever relied on were guilty of these things, to my knowledge, if they were I could hardly be blamed for it, which is what you are trying to do.

What the fuck do you and your priests have to do with trump having a child rapist as an advisor?

I'll wait.

Some views I agree with you, Scott.

But I have problems with some significant conclusions and how you got there.

Satan is mythology. Sin has no reference in secular law. A man of God is subjective.

I disagree with you about meanings of what persons say and write, and do. Same with honesty, truth, integrity, honor, lies and the other stuff you mentioned, and so forth.

Do pedophiles usually fess up? I think MAGA would have a collective heart attack if Trump confessed.

As a person who cares about you, I recommend that you check yourself regarding nihilism.

If we lose or abandon moral reality, we're fucked.

All those things you say are pretty negative thoughts. For example, me and all the people I know still think a person's word means something, and I in particular judge another primarily on that one factor.

I can't imagine how you got to where you are with those negative thoughts, and all I can really say is I'm glad I'm not there with you.

quote:

I'm afraid you aren't going to be able to twist yourself in loops confusing enough to be able to explain pedophiles as anything other than evil.

How about perverted?

quote:

No, you cannot be a charlatan and a true believer. A sinner and true believer yes.

Okay, I used the wrong word.

But I wouldn't use "sinner" either because of the religious reference.

So, it's true that one can be a pervert and a true believer.

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. - Attributed to Sinclair Lewis without quotation marks.

"Be careful. When a democracy is sick, fascism comes to its bedside, but it is not to inquire about its health." - Albert Camus

Two falsely attributed quotes. What else are you getting wrong?

Anything you support should be treated with skepticism.

Mike, the key word is former. If you hire a para-legal and then fire them, are you responsible for their past crimes prior to employment?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Mike,

Grow up. I'm Catholic and while I never saw any abuse and none of the priests I ever relied on were guilty of these things, to my knowledge, if they were I could hardly be blamed for it, which is what you are trying to do.

What the fuck do you and your priests have to do with trump having a child rapist as an advisor?

I'll wait.

quote:

Originally posted by bob-y:
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. - Attributed to Sinclair Lewis without quotation marks.

"Be careful. When a democracy is sick, fascism comes to its bedside, but it is not to inquire about its health." - Albert Camus

Two falsely attributed quotes. What else are you getting wrong?

Anything you support should be treated with skepticism.

Of course, anything that is presented as truth should be regarded with skepticism.

Likewise, truth is elusive, and often subjective, hard to pin down, and rarely absolute, especially in politics, right and wrong, etc.

"What else are you getting wrong?"

You tell me, and we can discuss it.

Here's an explanation of the two quotes you claim are falsely attributed. By claiming false attribution, in effect you are dismissing the message of the quotes. That's your intent. Who gives a fart about who said it.

So, the message resonates with you. I'm happy.


The quote, "Be careful. When a democracy is sick, fascism comes to its bedside, but it is not to inquire about its health," is often attributed to Albert Camus, though there is no definitive evidence he said or wrote it. However, the sentiment accurately reflects Camus's strong anti-totalitarian and anti-fascist views, which are well-documented in his other works.

Meaning of the quote:

The quote uses an allegory to warn against complacency in protecting democratic institutions.

A "sick" democracy: This refers to a democracy weakened by internal problems like corruption, social division, economic inequality, or a loss of civic trust.

Fascism at the "bedside": When these issues fester, fascism—or any other form of totalitarianism—is presented as an opportunistic presence that preys on the system's vulnerabilities.

"Not to inquire about its health": This is the key warning. Fascism's arrival is not to heal the democracy, but to exploit its weakness and ultimately destroy it.

Context in Camus's work:
Though the exact words are not confirmed, the quote is consistent with the themes explored in Camus's writings, particularly The Plague.

The Plague as an allegory: Camus's novel uses the sudden outbreak of a plague in an Algerian city as an allegory for the rise of fascism and Nazi occupation. In the book, the community's reaction highlights human fallibility and resilience in the face of an encroaching evil.

The nature of the "illness": For Camus, fascism exploits a moral and spiritual "illness" within a society. He believed that complacency allows the "plague" of totalitarianism to spread and that constant vigilance is required to fight against it.

Collective action: The quote's message is that it is the collective responsibility of a democracy's citizens to maintain its health and resist the allure of authoritarian "cures," which are often framed as simple solutions to complex problems.

========================================================

The statement, "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross," is widely attributed to author Sinclair Lewis, but scholars say there is no record of him ever saying or writing this exact phrase. Instead, the quote is considered an evolution of sentiments Lewis expressed in his 1935 novel It Can't Happen Here and elsewhere.

Background on the quote:

The sentiment of the statement aligns with the themes of Lewis's novel It Can't Happen Here, which portrays the rise of an American fascist leader who uses patriotic and religious rhetoric. The Sinclair Lewis Society points out that similar ideas were voiced by several individuals around the same time. Examples include Lewis's writing in Gideon Planish (1943) about using symbols like the flag and cross to conceal motives, James Waterman Wise, Jr.'s (1936) prediction of fascism being disguised as patriotism, and Halford E. Luccock's (1938) idea that American fascism would be called "Americanism". Despite the lack of a definitive source, the quote has become strongly linked to Lewis and his novel in the public mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
Some views I agree with you, Scott.

But I have problems with some significant conclusions and how you got there.

Satan is mythology. Sin has no reference in secular law. A man of God is subjective.

I disagree with you about meanings of what persons say and write, and do. Same with honesty, truth, integrity, honor, lies and the other stuff you mentioned, and so forth.

Do pedophiles usually fess up? I think MAGA would have a collective heart attack if Trump confessed.

As a person who cares about you, I recommend that you check yourself regarding nihilism.

If we lose or abandon moral reality, we're fucked.

All those things you say are pretty negative thoughts. For example, me and all the people I know still think a person's word means something, and I in particular judge another primarily on that one factor.

I can't imagine how you got to where you are with those negative thoughts, and all I can really say is I'm glad I'm not there with you.

I have ears. They work.

How many proven lies has Trump told as leader of the Free World?

How many professed patriots approve of January 6th and the subsequent pardons?

How do you reconcile the divorce rate with the sentences like, " I love you" and "til death do us part."

Dishonesty is approved today. It's said here frequently.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

No, you cannot be a charlatan and a true believer. A sinner and true believer yes.

Okay, I used the wrong word.

But I wouldn't use "sinner" either because of the religious reference.

So, it's true that one can be a pervert and a true believer.

No. The Bible is very clear about sin and confession.

If your brains are so addled that you find children attractive a True Believer would confess that to the appropriate helpers and pursue treatment. Castration would seem appropriate to me.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

I have ears. They work.

How many proven lies has Trump told as leader of the Free World?

How many professed patriots approve of January 6th and the subsequent pardons?

How do you reconcile the divorce rate with the sentences like, " I love you" and "til death do us part."

Dishonesty is approved today. It's said here frequently.

I scratched one of your sentences because I don't know the answer and don't want to speculate. And, IMO, it's a separate discussion.

The rest of your post could just as well be statements as questions, leading to your conclusion "Dishonesty is approved today".

It's a fact that's what got Trump elected. So, it's a big deal. And it multiplies as in general all lies do in order to perpetuate.

I'm glad that you see the reality of it, even though it took a little editing and coaching.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

No, you cannot be a charlatan and a true believer. A sinner and true believer yes.

Okay, I used the wrong word.

But I wouldn't use "sinner" either because of the religious reference.

So, it's true that one can be a pervert and a true believer.

No. The Bible is very clear about sin and confession.

If your brains are so addled that you find children attractive a True Believer would confess that to the appropriate helpers and pursue treatment. Castration would seem appropriate to me.

You are bringing up some very interesting points, at least in my opinion.

Again, you are judging this from a Biblical perspective.

So, let's explore what I mean by "True Believer", from a perspective including scripture, but larger.

AI:

A "true believer" is a person who holds an absolute and unwavering belief in a particular ideology, cause, or belief system. The term can refer to both a zealous and positive supporter or, more negatively, a blinded fanatic.

The concept from Eric Hoffer:

The term was popularized by the self-educated philosopher Eric Hoffer in his 1951 book, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements.

Hoffer posited that individuals who join mass movements often feel their lives are "irredeemably spoiled" and seek purpose through "self-renunciation" within a larger collective.

He argued that the fanaticism of these followers isn't driven by the specific beliefs of the movement, but by their psychological need to escape feelings of inadequacy.

Hoffer also asserted that all mass movements are interchangeable, and adherents can easily switch from one to another. For instance, an individual might transition from being a fervent communist to a fervent fascist because their psychological needs, not the ideology itself, are the driving force.

Psychological characteristics:

Modern psychology builds upon Hoffer's work, identifying several traits common to the true believer:

Conviction over evidence: They hold strong beliefs even when the supporting evidence is disproportionately weak.

Doubling down: When faced with conflicting information or cognitive dissonance, they often become more committed to their belief rather than questioning it.

Intellectual rigidity: Their deep ideological commitment is often accompanied by an inability to appreciate alternative perspectives.
Identity fusion: Their beliefs are so intertwined with their personal identity that challenging the belief can feel like a personal threat.

Manifestations in different areas:

The term "true believer" is used across different fields to describe those with unwavering conviction.

In religion: A true believer is someone who adheres strictly to the tenets of a religious doctrine.

In politics: It can describe an ideological purist who supports a political cause with fanatical devotion.

In social causes: A person who is wholly dedicated to a specific social or environmental cause could be called a true believer.

In legal defense: A defense attorney who fights for their client by forcing the state to prove its case, rather than presuming the client's guilt, can be considered a true believer in the justice system.

The power and peril of true belief:

While true believers can be a catalyst for positive change, their blind loyalty also carries risks:

Potential for extremism: Unwavering commitment can lead to fanaticism and intolerance of dissenting views.

Social division: When beliefs become dogmatic, they can contribute to polarization and societal fragmentation.

Intolerance of dissent: A true believer's resistance to conflicting information can make them intolerant toward others with different views.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

I have ears. They work.

How many proven lies has Trump told as leader of the Free World?

How many professed patriots approve of January 6th and the subsequent pardons?

How do you reconcile the divorce rate with the sentences like, " I love you" and "til death do us part."

Dishonesty is approved today. It's said here frequently.

I scratched one of your sentences because I don't know the answer and don't want to speculate. And, IMO, it's a separate discussion.

The rest of your post could just as well be statements as questions, leading to your conclusion "Dishonesty is approved today".

It's a fact that's what got Trump elected. So, it's a big deal. And it multiplies as in general all lies do in order to perpetuate.

I'm glad that you see the reality of it, even though it took a little editing and coaching.

When it comes to Trump I've known it all along. As I've mentioned many times, I couldn't stand him in 2016 nor can I today. Like any "ruler", I suspect Trump isn't entirely evil and entirely without merit, but even given my appreciation of Trump's efforts on the border, with the Drug War and the possibility of peace in Gaza i still wouldn't vote for him.

As to the broader issue of widespread dishonesty, look around for the obvious. "Best ever!" Only one!" "One of a kind!".

I would never, they would never, I can't believe, for the first time, for the last time! Oh bullshit.

"The best!" "The worst!".

And my mention of marriage is spot on. My first ex wife demanded we marry or she would leave. Less than two years after marrying she left and we dissolved our marriage in court by teleconference. That's right from a kitchen table in North Dakota where I was pheasant hunting i got divorced over the phone. I phoned it in. I still laugh in disbelief.

Peoples word is garbage anymore. Alliances and treaties, agreements and contracts, i really prefer to mostly not shake hands anymore because I entirely doubt the sincerity of a handshake, especially with random strangers.

Demonstrate, ( don't tell me,) how I'm wrong.

I look at it as guilt by association because that's not invalid. Look at all the ignorant, unqualified low life A-holes trump has surrounded himself with. There is a pattern & this guy fits right in. trump knows all the finest people..... What other sleaze does he have in dumpster waiting to surface?

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

No, you cannot be a charlatan and a true believer. A sinner and true believer yes.

Okay, I used the wrong word.

But I wouldn't use "sinner" either because of the religious reference.

So, it's true that one can be a pervert and a true believer.

No. The Bible is very clear about sin and confession.

If your brains are so addled that you find children attractive a True Believer would confess that to the appropriate helpers and pursue treatment. Castration would seem appropriate to me.

“And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you.“

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Genesis 3:1, Satan appeared as a snake.

That a person appears as a man of God, a Christian or any kind of spiritual leader certainly doesn't mean they are.

In our daily life all of us here are surrounded by Americans that profess to be patriotic, faithful, loyal, possessing the, "Fruits of the Spirit", honest, God Fearing citizens and they demonstrate the opposite.

It's disappointing to read about these demons that walk amongst us but not surprising.

I have been thinking for a while now that we are surrounded by evil. If you want to call it sin or satanic or Satan and his demons ok, i don't know, regardless I think evil is with us and its goal is destruction. Evil isn't trying to win or conquer, evil isn't interested in adding to its ranks, it just wants to destroy.

So in the case above evil destroyed. Evil got to the perpetrator, their victims, the perpetrators family and friends, the victims family and friends the church congregation and on. Evil didn't win, its no stronger than before, there's no medal won or territory gained, it just destroyed.

Of course if you’re A Mike you have a perfect filter and all associates in life have been saints. Just goes with the name!

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

No, you cannot be a charlatan and a true believer. A sinner and true believer yes.

Okay, I used the wrong word.

But I wouldn't use "sinner" either because of the religious reference.

So, it's true that one can be a pervert and a true believer.

No. The Bible is very clear about sin and confession.

If your brains are so addled that you find children attractive a True Believer would confess that to the appropriate helpers and pursue treatment. Castration would seem appropriate to me.

“And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you.“

I'll rephrase one of Scott's Christian perspective claims:

If your brains are so addled that you find children Trumpism attractive a Christian True Believer would confess that to the appropriate helpers and pursue treatment.

=============================

If it's your brain causing the sin, should it be plucked and cast aside?

I thought the eye transmits image or signal to the brain which translates. Then, the spoken words originate in the brain, and the vocal cords and tongue respond accordingly. As I'm typing on the keyboard, my fingers are not operating autonomously.

So, how is it possible that the Bible ignored all that?

AND

What is sin?

Is lying sinful? Is supporting a liar sinful? Is believing a liar and parroting his lies sinful? Are your eyes and/or ears lying to you? Who's to blame?

Are your lies or parroting lies justified to gain a higher moral good, or prevent a greater evil, as judged by your lying eyes and ears?

Or, is the most logical answer that a self-deemed Christian True Believer liar is simply a charlatan zero-sum consequentialist hiding behind his Christian persona?

persona
noun
Synonyms of persona
1: a character assumed by an author in a written work

2: an individual's social facade or front that especially in the analytical psychology of Carl Gustav Jung reflects the role in life the individual is playing

============================================

AI:

Is lying a sin?

Across different faiths and ethical systems, lying is generally viewed as wrong, as it erodes trust and can cause significant harm. However, whether it is always considered a sin depends on the specific circumstances and religious or philosophical perspective.

In Christianity, lying is considered a sin, with some interpretations suggesting it is always wrong, regardless of the motivation.

Biblical condemnation: The Bible contains many verses against lying. The Ninth Commandment is "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16). The book of Proverbs states that "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 12:22), and Revelation warns that all liars will face judgment.

Theological debate on exceptions: There is a long-standing theological debate about whether certain situations justify lying.
Strict view: St. Augustine argued that all lies are sinful, even those told to save an innocent life, because they violate God's truthfulness.

Merciful view: Other theologians, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, have argued against a rigid prohibition, stating that an act of love for one's neighbor—such as lying to protect them from a murderer—is the higher moral good. They argue that one should lie to save a friend but that either choice is difficult and involves guilt.

Biblical examples: The Bible itself provides complex examples, such as the Hebrew midwives lying to Pharaoh to save Israelite babies and Rahab deceiving soldiers to protect spies. In these cases, the individuals are not condemned for their lies, which leads some to believe that lying to prevent a greater evil may be viewed more leniently.

==================================

Secular ethics
Secular philosophies on lying do not rely on a religious concept of sin but instead analyze the effects of lying on society and individuals.

Erodes trust: Most ethical frameworks recognize that lying is harmful because it destroys trust, which is essential for healthy relationships and social function.

Context matters: Unlike a categorical prohibition, secular ethics often weigh the outcome and intention of a lie. A "white lie" told to spare someone's feelings is viewed differently than a lie intended for malicious or selfish purposes.

Utilitarianism: A utilitarian perspective may justify lying if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example, lying to a killer to save a life would be considered ethically acceptable.

=======================================================

Also

AI

In secular ethics, consequentialism evaluates lies based solely on their outcomes, not on any inherent rightness or wrongness of the act itself. A consequentialist determines the morality of lying by weighing its foreseeable consequences against those of telling the truth, and choosing the action that produces the best overall results.

Act consequentialism vs. rule consequentialism

The consequentialist perspective on lying depends on which version of the theory is applied:

Act consequentialism: This view holds that a lie is morally right if that specific, individual lie produces a better outcome than telling the truth in that particular situation. For an act consequentialist, there is no blanket rule against lying; each instance must be evaluated on its own merits. This is seen in the classic example of a murderer asking for the location of their intended victim—a consequentialist would say it is right to lie to save a life.

Rule consequentialism: This version argues that the morality of an action is determined by the consequences of following a general rule. A rule consequentialist would consider the long-term, societal consequences of lying as a general practice. Because a society where lying is common would lead to a breakdown of trust and social cohesion, a rule consequentialist would conclude that lying is generally wrong, even if an individual lie could produce a positive outcome.

Key considerations for consequentialists

When evaluating a lie, a consequentialist must consider several factors:

Overall outcomes: The "good" or "bad" results are judged on different criteria depending on the specific form of consequentialism being used.

Utilitarianism: A prominent type of consequentialism, utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall happiness or "utility" and minimizing harm or suffering.

Ethical Egoism: This view holds that an action's morality is determined by whether it produces the most favorable outcome for oneself.

Balancing short-term vs. long-term effects: While a lie may have a positive immediate effect—such as protecting someone's feelings—the long-term consequences can be negative. The discovery of a lie can erode trust, damage relationships, or harm the liar's reputation. A consequentialist must weigh these different timeframes.

Predicting consequences: A major criticism of consequentialism is that it can be very difficult to predict all the outcomes of a lie, especially the long-term or indirect effects.

Examples of consequentialist lying

Based on a consequentialist framework, lying might be considered morally justifiable in these situations:

Saving a life: Lying to a potential murderer about the location of their victim is a widely cited example where lying is seen as the moral choice because it prevents a greater harm.

Protecting feelings: Telling a "white lie" to spare a person from unnecessary emotional pain or stress could be justified if the positive emotional outcome outweighs any negative consequences.

Medical context: Some medical professionals may use a consequentialist approach to withhold sensitive information from a patient if they believe the full truth would cause overwhelming stress or negatively impact their recovery.

It is a dysphemism ME…used to drive home a point.

quote:

dysphemism

Dysphemism - Wikipedia
A dysphemism is an expression with connotations that are derogatory either about the subject matter or to the audience. Dysphemisms contrast with neutral or euphemistic expressions. Dysphemism may be motivated by fear, distaste, hatred,...
============================

The point is, that I got your point and expanded on it because I saw a window into your thinking and read past your intended message into logical inferences, blind to you.

IOW, the points you drove home were unintended.

ME,
You’re not an unintelligent person. But somewhere in your past something went terribly wrong. Your psychosis is expressing itself. Go catch some bluegill and set some throwlines somewhere.

If guilt by association is the case... Than Obo hated America, because his spiritual adviser did?
I dont buy that theory.

quote:

Do pedophiles usually fess up? I think MAGA would have a collective heart attack if Trump confessed.

No they wouldn’t - they’d enshrine his conduct as an obligation of Party Membership, declare an annual national holiday and write an amendment into the Constitution. Maybe mint a coin to celebrate.
Haven’t you ever heard the song about how “Jesus Loves the Little Children”? Well, if you love Jesus…

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
If guilt by association is the case... Than Obo hated America, because his spiritual adviser did?
I dont buy that theory.

Well, I learn something new on this forum often. Researching this I now see where the notion that Obama was racially divisive came from. Rightists made up a narrative for political leverage but didn't correct it upon further events/evidence.

AI:

Did Obama's spiritual advisor hate America?

Former President Barack Obama's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was accused of having anti-American views based on controversial sermon clips that circulated during the 2008 presidential campaign. Wright strongly defended his comments and condemned the criticism as an attack on the Black church, rejecting any characterization of his views as unpatriotic.

The controversy over Wright's comments:

During his 20-year relationship with Wright at Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama credited Wright with the title of his 2006 book, The Audacity of Hope. The controversy during the 2008 election centered on the content and tone of Wright's sermons, which were rooted in Black liberation theology. In multiple sermons, Wright made statements critical of U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Specific comments that drew criticism include:

"God damn America": In a 2003 sermon, Wright declared, "God damn America for killing innocent people... for treating our citizens as less than human".

"Chickens coming home to roost": In a sermon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Wright said the U.S. had brought the attacks on itself due to its foreign policy.

9/11 conspiracy theory: Wright suggested the U.S. was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

HIV/AIDS conspiracy theory: Wright speculated that the U.S. government "invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color".

Racial inequality: He criticized racial injustices, including the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, and portrayed the U.S. as a "racist and arrogant superpower".

Wright's defense and interpretation:

After the sermon clips were publicized, Wright defended his statements and claimed they were taken out of context.

Prophetic tradition: He explained that his use of phrases like "God damn America" were in the tradition of prophetic theology within the Black church, which he said sometimes requires calling out a nation's wrongdoing.

Critiquing government, not hating America: He emphasized that his critiques were directed at the U.S. government's policies and actions, not the American people.

Military service: He also pointed to his own six years of military service as a sign of his patriotism.

Obama's response:
Initially, Obama called Wright "an old uncle who sometimes will say things I don't agree with". When the controversy intensified, he delivered a major speech on race in America, "A More Perfect Union," addressing his relationship with Wright.

Distanced himself: Obama unequivocally condemned Wright's most inflammatory remarks, calling them "profoundly distorted" and "divisive," stating they did not reflect his own views.

Placed comments in context: While condemning the specific remarks, he also provided a broader context for understanding the frustration and anger within the Black community that helped shape a figure like Wright. He explained he could not disown Wright any more than he could disown the Black community itself.

Broke ties: After Wright made further controversial statements in interviews, Obama cut ties with his former pastor and resigned his family's membership from the church.

The interpretation of Wright's stance toward America remains divided, with some viewing his comments as hateful and unpatriotic, while others see them as provocative but justified critiques from the perspective of Black liberation theology.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
ME,
You’re not an unintelligent person. But somewhere in your past something went terribly wrong. Your psychosis is expressing itself. Go catch some bluegill and set some throwlines somewhere.

Your suggestion to go fishing is one I'm planning on - soon.

quote:

psychosis

Psychosis is a collection of symptoms that occur when a person has difficulty distinguishing between what is real and what is not. It can arise from various mental and physical conditions, leading to symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions.

==================================

One thing real is that your first sentence contains is what I think is called double-negative.

But again, I got your points.

Also, in the reality game, what you deem "terribly wrong" could be superbly right to another.

Long ago, I learned or decided from experience that True Believers of all sorts have their heads in La La Land, and they use belief as a crutch, intellectually having few options. IMO, rigid belief supplanting critical thinking is a form of psychosis because it voids or at least blurs reality.

Of course that doesn't mean they are bad people. It means that too often the consequences discloses the flaws, and they rationalize even that.

I've been trying to figure out how to explain all this simply. It can be complicated in the formulas of cause and effect, right and wrong.

So here's what I think may simplify. Bob-y just loves my quotes, so I'll give him one attributed to ME:

The end justifies the means; the end better be right. Magine Enigam With pun intended.

Now, we're talking about politics, La La Land, ethics, etc., since this thread has gone beyond the OP.

IMO, one clean way to assess situations, goals, or means, in politics is to first decide on evidence if it's "The End Justifies the Means".

Doing that will encompass consequentialism, reality, belief, cause and effect, right and wrong, and so forth.

I've said it many times, many ways, what Trumpism is all about is "The End Justifies the Means".

=====================================

AI Overview:

The statement "the end justifies the means" is a controversial philosophical concept, and the addition of "the end better be right" adds a crucial caveat to it. The combined phrase suggests that using morally questionable methods is only acceptable if the final outcome is genuinely and unequivocally good.

The original phrase: "The end justifies the means"

Meaning:
This is the core idea of consequentialism, a philosophical school of thought that judges the morality of an action based solely on its outcome or consequences.

The phrase argues that if a goal is important or good enough, any method, even a morally dubious one, can be used to achieve it.

Origin:
This phrase is often mistakenly attributed to Niccolò Machiavelli's 16th-century political treatise The Prince. While the book advocates a results-driven approach for rulers, it never explicitly uses this phrase.

The earliest expression of this idea can be traced to the Latin poet Ovid around 10 BC, who wrote Exitus acta probat ("The outcome justifies the deeds").

The qualifier: "The end better be right"

This addition fundamentally shifts the meaning of the original proverb by introducing a standard of accountability. It implies that a negative outcome invalidates the entire justification for the means used.

It creates a high-stakes ethical gamble:

The trolley problem: A classic example in philosophy. You can push one person to their death to save five people from a runaway trolley. The original phrase might justify this. But with the addendum, if your rescue attempt fails, your action becomes a completely unjustified murder.

Historical justification: Leaders have often used the principle of "the end justifies the means" to justify ruthless actions for a supposed "greater good". The added qualifier suggests that history's judgment of the outcome is the final moral measure.

The philosophical dilemma:

The full statement highlights the core conflict between two major ethical frameworks:

Consequentialism: The end is all that matters. It's often criticized for the difficulty in accurately predicting or controlling outcomes and for being used to justify cruelty.

Deontology: Means matter regardless of the outcome. This school of thought, famously associated with Immanuel Kant, argues that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, and consequences cannot justify immoral acts.

The phrase "the end better be right" serves as a direct critique of unbridled consequentialism. It suggests that if you are going to use ethically questionable methods, you must be held accountable for the result, with no excuses if the outcome is negative or fails to meet its lofty intentions.

==========================================================

There's another aspect to this: https://www.google.com/search?...sclient=gws-wiz-serp

Assuming I'm correct in assessing Trumpism being all about "The End Justifies the Means", then Trumpism is contrary to Founding Principles.

In addition to the highlighted paragraph above, that conclusion is reached thusly:

AI Overview:

Immanuel Kant influenced Thomas Jefferson's philosophy through the shared Enlightenment ideals of individual reason, natural rights, and liberty. Both believed in a government's duty to protect its citizens' rights, the importance of using reason to guide personal and public action, and the idea that individuals should be free to think for themselves and escape "self-imposed tutelage".

Shared Enlightenment ideals:

Reason and enlightenment: Both philosophers emphasized the power of individual reason. Kant's concept of Enlightenment as the "courage to use one's own reason" is reflected in Jefferson's belief in the individual's capacity for self-governance and his emphasis on using reason to declare freedom from oppression.

Natural rights: Jefferson's "unalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence mirror the Enlightenment focus on inherent human rights, a concept also central to Kant's philosophy, particularly his work on morality and the state.

Government's purpose: Both believed that a just government must be founded on the idea of human freedom and was obligated to protect the rights of its people. Jefferson's words about a government's duty to protect citizens' rights are in line with Kant's political philosophy, which sought to establish a system that fosters individual freedom, {says a paper on PhilPapers https://philpapers.org/rec/CREFAT-3}.

Moral sense: They both held that ordinary people's moral sense was a reliable guide for ethical decisions, even more so than philosophers who could be led astray by artificial rules.

Areas of influence:

The influence of Kant's ideas can be seen in the structure of the U.S. government, with its emphasis on checks and balances to protect liberty, though the actual implementation is a matter of debate.

They shared a belief in God and a respect for moral teachings, but rejected revelation and miracles, admiring Jesus primarily for his moral example.

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Mike, the key word is former. If you hire a para-legal and then fire them, are you responsible for their past crimes prior to employment?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Mike,

Grow up. I'm Catholic and while I never saw any abuse and none of the priests I ever relied on were guilty of these things, to my knowledge, if they were I could hardly be blamed for it, which is what you are trying to do.

What the fuck do you and your priests have to do with trump having a child rapist as an advisor?

I'll wait.

You make my point. I am not going to hire a paralegal who has committed past crimes.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Of course if you’re A Mike you have a perfect filter and all associates in life have been saints. Just goes with the name!

We're not talking about "saints"....You're making excuses for a man who raped a child.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Of course if you’re A Mike you have a perfect filter and all associates in life have been saints. Just goes with the name!

We're not talking about "saints"....You're making excuses for a man who raped a child.

No sir,
If you read above…I would volunteer to trip the latch on the gallows of any one who harmed a child…especially rape.

But the left wants to insist that we should not be allowed to look at the past behavior of potential employees with some limited exceptions in areas that are considered sensitive by the government.

So I should not be able to know that the guy I’m hiring as a janitor has a history of stealing stuff…

Yet the employer is responsible for criminal acts by employees?

As far as I’m concerned this guy should be given his day in court and then punished, and not the leftist “rehabilitation “ punishment. More like Old Testament retribution punishment for this crime.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by Bobster:
Mike, the key word is former. If you hire a para-legal and then fire them, are you responsible for their past crimes prior to employment?

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by lavaca:
Mike,

Grow up. I'm Catholic and while I never saw any abuse and none of the priests I ever relied on were guilty of these things, to my knowledge, if they were I could hardly be blamed for it, which is what you are trying to do.

What the fuck do you and your priests have to do with trump having a child rapist as an advisor?

I'll wait.

You make my point. I am not going to hire a paralegal who has committed past crimes.