how can they blame the az shooting on palin

[ohmwrecker]

^^^more dodging and weaving. I'm not surprised.

Pot meet kettle . . . did you answer the question yet?

[ohmwrecker]

Im still waiting on a concrete premise from Ohmwrecker. This is turning Parkeresque.

Let me put it to you in a context you can understand.

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong and/or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?

[Winehole23]

Pot meet kettle . . . did you answer the question yet?

Yes, I did. Periodic voting is a form of accountability.

[Winehole23]

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong and/or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?

Yes.

For better and for worse, doing so is also cons utionally protected.

[ohmwrecker]

Yes, I did. Periodic voting is a form of accountability.

I agree. It is A form. Is it the only form? Should it be?

[Winehole23]

Social disapprobation is another.

[clambake]

Let me put it to you in a context you can understand.

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong and/or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?

the accountability falls on the gullible. preachers do the same thing every day.

[ohmwrecker]

Yes.

For better and for worse, doing so is also cons utionally protected.

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

[ohmwrecker]

the accountability falls on the gullible. preachers do the same thing every day.

I agree, but supposedly government cannot legislate religion

[TeyshaBlue]

Let me put it to you in a context you can understand.

Is it morally irresponsible to tell people what they want to hear, even if it is wrong or playing into their hate and fear, to advance your own agenda and power position?

Your context is lacking since it now includes variables. Your question, such that it is can now provide a range of answers....none of which will be incorrect. Placing morality as the qualifier is a precursor to instant fail.

You have to define morality, further you must define it within this byzantine construct of context you have built.

But, let's take it apart for a bit.

No, it's not morally irresponsible (whatever that means) to tell people what they want to hear.
Yes, it could be wrong to play to their hate, but it might not be wrong to play to their fear.
No it's not wrong to advance your own agenda. That's value neutral until you assign the agenda some kind of morality index. Is it wrong to advance your own agenda (implicitly it appears) in lockstep with advancing your power position? Yes and no for the same reasons outlined above for advancing an agenda.
In short, the context you are trying to frame this issue in is full of holes and cannot yield a definite answer.

[Winehole23]

"The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

This isn't revolutionary France, bubba. I hardly see why the Rights of Man should be considered dispositive for us.

[ohmwrecker]

Social disapprobation is another.

Then why do people have a problem with holding Palin accountable?

[clambake]

Your context is lacking since it now includes variables. Your question, such that it is can now provide a range of answers....none of which will be incorrect. Placing morality as the qualifier is a precursor to instant fail.

You have to define morality, further you must define it within this byzantine construct of context you have built.

But, let's take it apart for a bit.

No, it's not morally irresponsible (whatever that means) to tell people what they want to hear.
Yes, it could be wrong to play to their hate, but it might not be wrong to play to their fear.
No it's not wrong to advance your own agenda. That's value neutral until you assign the agenda some kind of morality index. Is it wrong to advance your own agenda (implicitly it appears) in lockstep with advancing your power position? Yes and no for the same reasons outlined above for advancing an agenda.
In short, the context you are trying to frame this issue in is full of holes and cannot yield a definite answer.

thanks for that. where's the aspirin?

[Winehole23]

Then why do people have a problem with holding Palin accountable?

I have no problem with social disapproval or voting rhetorical bombthrowers out of office.

[ohmwrecker]

In short, the context you are trying to frame this issue in is full of holes and cannot yield a definite answer.

Yet, you gave me one anyway . . .

[TeyshaBlue]

Then why do people have a problem with holding Palin accountable?

You have to establish a chain of events, logically with proof, before accountability enters the picture. Thus far, that chain doesn't exist.
We might think it does, but you don't know what you don't know.

[TeyshaBlue]

Yet, you gave me one anyway . . .

No, I gave you a range of answers.

[TeyshaBlue]

thanks for that. where's the aspirin?

Sorry. I was gazing longingly at a picture of RG when I did that.

[ohmwrecker]

I have no problem with social disapproval or voting rhetorical bombthrowers out of office.

I don't either. I am unfamiliar with that particular bit of rhetoric however.

[ohmwrecker]

No, I gave you a range of answers.

I only asked for one.

[Winehole23]

But you continue to ignore TB's answer completely, for going beyond the confines of the original question.

Do you really want to have a discussion, or are you content to pick nits?

[ohmwrecker]

You have to establish a chain of events, logically with proof, before accountability enters the picture. Thus far, that chain doesn't exist.
We might think it does, but you don't know what you don't know.

It may or may not exist. It's certainly worth looking into. At the very least, no one should be attacked or ridiculed for asking the question.

[ohmwrecker]

But you continue to ignore TB's answer completely.

I didn't ignore it. It was a personal question. I got a rhetorical answer.

[Winehole23]

^^^mounts another weak semantic challenge. This isn't going well for you.

[Winehole23]

lol parsing your own question as an excuse to continue avoiding TB's reply to you.