After her mainstream interviews went so badly, Noem naturally blamed it on 'fake news' and retreated to rightwing media. That didn't go any better. Red State said she 'Cricketed her career.' So she's cancelled her media tour. https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-ne...i-noem-after-disastrous-attempts-clean-book-0
It's more about morals than ethics. Ethics is just going along with the flow of what society expects. Morals is about personal choices. I evaluate other people's morals based on my own morals ... we all do.
It's amazing her actual printed words are being used against her and she blames it on someone else. Mind boggling how stupid both she and her supporters are. To give her some credit, Maga nation has often gotten past their stupidity by blaming it on fakes new or "mainstream media".
I’m trying to wrap my mind around your POV. So, there are 3 stages of moral thinking. As a person matures they move to the most advanced stage of moral thinking, which is post-conventional thinking. It involves complex reasoning about personal ethical decisions. However, are those conclusions universal? So, is it absolutely true that decision X is wrong given a set of circumstances Y, or is this a “Well you have your truth, and I have my truth” kind of thing?
I bet the book still sells. It’s compelling - a live look at the destruction of what appeared to be a career with no ceiling.
once you put something apparently fake in the book, it's hard to talk your way out of it. but her arrogant refusals to discuss it have only made her look far worse. Did you meet with Kim? "That's being taken out of the book." Does that mean you didn't meet with him? "I've met with many world leaders but I won't discuss which ones." Did you not know that was in the book? Did you write it? "I'm not talking about it." But you did an audio recording, did you not notice it then? "FAKE NEWS! FAKE NEWS!"
The blatant religious bigotry on TH is so disappointing. What makes this sadly hilarious is that you’re showing your bigotry in posts where you call for people to treat others how they would want to be treated.
We'll, you could just read about Kolhberg's Triangle ... And you have it wrong, people don't mature into advanced moral thinking, that diagram I posted shows what each age group is likely capable of achieving. Adults can still operate on the lowest levels ... reward and punishment... and often do. IIRC, he called it a "triangle" because he believed most decisions are made at the bottom level and very few at the top. And again, it's about personal morals, so two people can come to different conclusions. The level of reasoning is what he deemed important.
Maybe it's "religious bigotry" to imply that only Bible reading Christians know the difference between right and wrong?
Nobody has implied that. But you’re dodging the issue. To say that religious people “pretend an invisible man in the sky agrees with them” is not only condescending and arrogant, it is bigoted.
OK, so when you speak of moral decision making, truth is not what gives a moral decision value. Reasoning is what is valued regardless of whether the decision made aligns with the truth. You really believe that?
Can you understand that to a non believer, the fact that some people want society to impose their laws and values on them, based upon a supernatural beings beliefs and desires, is extremely problematic?
LOLd at that T shirt While self immolation is a bipartisan endeavor it sure seems like we are a lot more of it among Republicans. Perhaps she’s a good candidate to do the next state of the union Republican response.
Uhhh… define truth? I don’t recognize there being some absolute “truth” when it comes to morality, do you? I mean, there can't be, because morality, by its definition, is a personal set of values.
Yes, I can understand that. But do you believe that considering an idea to be problematic grants someone the right to be arrogant, condescending, and bigoted? They could’ve easily expressed their ideas civilly, but chose instead to express in the form of religious prejudice. By the way, everybody has a worldview. Most of politics is about people imposing their worldview on everyone else.
Was Ted Bundy absolutely wrong to do what he did, or did he simply have a disagreement about his personal set of values? Hint: This is a lay up. It is not a difficult question.
