Thread:Omar067/@comment-681745-20120628194222/@comment-3338975-20120629055418

"Judge not, lest you be judged." It's funny, but I've never see why conservatives are supposed to be excepted from the standard primae faciae, nor liberals, which is largely responsible for why I'm a political moderate, as it's allowed me to hear out both liberal and conservative arguments and understand the strong and weak points of each side. The moral legislation of that command was that since it is impossible for a human being to know a person's innermost thoughts and thus the complete body of reasons for their making the moral decisions that they did, one cannot set oneself up as if one's perspective was in the absolute right and one's opponents in the absolute wrong and that if one does so, one would ultimately be judged in the negative for doing so, as one will ultimately being judged in the negative for setting up the false subjectifying criteria of one's own life as absolutes in the face of the eternal truth. Since we all do this, a dose of humility is needed and so we must always return to the apparent logic of the person's actual argument and not jump ahead to morally condeming them.

The point of my asking about which of the three presidential candidates wanted a government take over, is that the idea of a government take-over is being qualified by subjective partisan views in this argument (not to prove which party is more moral). The fact is, both Lincoln and Beckenridge went beyond the strict wording of the Constitution and the rights that whose protection were entailed therein, and thus they necessarily intruded upon the private lives of American individuals beyond what the contract they had agreed upon directly entailed. The question therefore becomes, what intrusion on the private rights of individuals beyond what was concretely agreed upon is justified, and what isn't? This is what is actually being discussed in this thread, in terms of partisan differences, and not government take-over. So, I suggest that we actually debate over the logical basis of those partisan differences in a open-minded fashion if we're going to continue what is laughably being called a debate right now, rather than continuing to attack one another for things we're not even directly discussing and calling the other side liars merely for not agreeing to the terms of the debate which were never agreed upon in the first place.