Hehe, this thread is funny in multiple ways. As far as I'm concerned, what lordjedi just described is the height of common sense. Making choices that are commonly known to be wise. If other people looked after their own lives and their own children with the same kind of diligence, this country and this world would be a much better place in general. Thankfully most US citizens still understand this. We don't have the work ethic of a third-world culture yet, but that's always a danger and government can be a very destructive influence on our society as far as the ethics of hard work and pride/honor/respect go.

As far as I'm concerned, I see modern politicians falling over themselves to enact programs that coddle and promote stupidity. For instance, that fool Edwards is talking about how we need a federal fund to save people's home ownerships after they've poorly managed their mortgages (I'm sure people like ADM love this idea), and yet that fund would be paid for with tax money taken from people like lordjedi who have spent their lives doing the right thing and taking life's problems seriously. Which behavior is the behavior that truly deserves assistance and promotion though? Which behavior do we really want to encourage in our society and teach to each new generation? Common sense isn't common; people need to learn what works or they'll be stuck in self-destructive behavior. Sometimes that learning process is painful and uncomfortable, sometimes to the degree where their lives and the lives of their children are shortened, but they are lessons that must be learned. If we truly care about other people, then we need to let them endure hardship when they need to endure hardship.

Now, ethical principles are very different from common sense. A person concerned with ethics analyzes fundamental rules of human behavior as a way to deduce that which is most wise through the way different rules intersect and interact. The fundamental rules used in this process are defined by the fact that they are very stable and at least seem to never change. It's kind of like common sense but much more scientific.

Originally posted by: Rob
lordjedi,
1. Should a child be given medical treatment free of charge by American taxpayers if his or her parents do not have health insurance?

2. Is Ann Coulter a cunt (does she make you at least a little bit uneasy)?

3. Is Rush Limbaugh a hypocrite (do you find him laughable)?

4. Is George Bush a conservative?

5. Is George Bush a bit of a dunce?

5. Should gay couples be able to adopt children that are otherwised not wanted by straight couples and are going to live in a foster home if not adopted by a homosexual couple. Please don't qualify this question, anwser it as a hypothetical if you must.

6. Who killed JFK?

7. Should pot be legal?

8. Should the "God Hates Fags" people have the right to protest at the funerals of American Soldiers? I am not asking this in terms of a states rights question, I'm asking whether or not YOU feel that they should have that right.

1. This is an invalid question to ask as any sort of absolute rule to judge other people since its assumptions become faulty at that absolute level. Most notably I'd have to assume that a child could be given free medical care via taxpayer money in every possible instance where a child has no "coverage," which would be absurd. After that I'd have to assume that if a child were given free medical care with taxpayer money (when it is without coverage), that such a response could be the best possible action to take out of every possible action that could exist in competition with it, and yet logic tells us that it is impossible for us to absolutely affirm a negative. Therefore my answer is: sometimes, depending upon the situation.

2. Not physically, no, but I think she has one.

3. Yes (and yes). I find many people hypocritical and laughable though, and Rush Limbaugh is actually about average here. I still think he's a very smart, funny, and likable, optimistic guy despite his faults.

4. Not overall, at least not in the way I define conservatism. Ron Paul is someone I'd call a real "conservative" as apposed to Bush and all of the other jerks he's running against (though I still disagree with him about Iraq and the Middle East).

5. In certain cases, when they are thoroughly investigated to be fit parental material, sure.

6. Lee Harvey Oswald.

7. Yes, but it should still be considered morally and ethically wrong. Sort of like premarital sex in a very loose sense.

8. No, it's disgusting.