@58. goy:
Your mindless, adolescent idolatry of socially suicidal ideology is given far more civility and respect in this forum than it deserves, Zippy.
How you equate single payer healthcare with social suicide is unclear. Your in-group is not the end-all of us.
And as for your sophomoric, arrogant demeanor, even my 20-year-old daughter is better at suppressing the passive-aggressive manner you choose to spew your nonsense here. You reap what you sow.
Too bad her old man hasn’t learned a thing from her. I’m sure she’s a nice young lady, and not half as loony as her dad.
I haven’t twisted anything. And it’s an outright lie to claim that I have. You rely on that lie because my conclusions, based fairly on Haidt’s work, frighten you.
I don’t think you respect his yin/yang concept, or understand the idea that moral progress depends on the progressive impulse to transcend in-group, purity and authority. I have no doubt that this phenomenon is driven by the psychology of human development, and it’s blatantly obvious that you don’t grasp the historical dialectic at play. There is little more to be said on the matter. I recognize the dependence of insular cultures on the xenophobic traits that you claim constitute a complete moral framework. I reject the way in which you would apply these insights.
I’ve never claimed that Haidt supports the idea of moral adolescence, and I’ve made it clear that I don’t agree with the philosophical tangent he pursues once his own leftist sensibilities seem to hijack his intellectual honesty, sending him off on the path of moral relativism.
Here is where your “righteous mind” hijacks your reason. You agree with the evidence only until it diverges from your preconceived notions, at which point you assert that the researcher is no longer reliable. This is so classic, it truly is comedy.
But Haidt has already publicly observed the hypocrisy of the left and proclaimed that observation directly to their faces. I have faith that HE will come around, because that observation isn’t compatible with the Yin/Yang explanation he’s used to rationalize the dichotomy. You, not so much.
From where do you derive your faith? You reject his interpretation based solely on your own self-righteousness.
I affectionately refer to you as “Zippy” because I once had a dog that used to run straight into the wall for no reason any vet could ever figure out. He wasn’t blind. He did everything else dogs do and was otherwise perfectly normal. But he kept running into the wall. You remind me of him.
I might guess he was trying to escape his abusive owner, but that would be a wild supposition.
Don’t think I’ve ever discussed your intelligence, Zippy. What I’ve observed and commented on is your ignorance, gullibility and self-righteous arrogance. While those may indicate sub-par intelligence, I haven’t drawn that conclusion in your case.
You don’t even accept your own best sources. You accuse me of cherry-picking while you make bald-faced assertions in direct contradiction of the research you cite. Thanks for the affectionate nickname, but really, I can’t hold a candle to you when it comes to arrogance.
I enjoy the exchange.
Good. We’ve got common ground.
The “universal” morality espoused by the left dead-ends in Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the social detritus left behind in the aftermath the Soviet Union. The holistic morality espoused by morally mature adults who respect individual liberty, individual responsibility and the Republican form of Government our Constitution guarantees led to Disneyland.
You’ve again encapsulated the bald-faced ignorance and arrogance of your ideology in one short paragraph. Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the Soviet Union all relied on exploiting the authority, purity and in-group ‘ethics’. The rejection/transcendence of these ethics is the only means to achieve an enlightened and egalitarian future.
You misunderstand ethics and morality in a very fundamental way, but you show an interest in learning. It is fundamentally dishonest to claim that Stalin represents the ideal of the left. It is also fundamentally dishonest to deny the critical role that these three ‘intuitive ethics’ have played in the conflicts and violence that have marred the millennia of human history. It may not be possible to immediately transcend these intuitions, but there is no reason to intentionally perpetuate a source of misery.
Peace.
DS
