What do Dems Have Besides Doom and Gloom?

[DivineOb]

Fine, "What are the plans."

I would still refer you to his own words and you can make your own judgement. I'm comfortable with the idea that his plans are generally in alignment with those broad goals I listed since all of those things typify the Obama administration. If you can point to which ones you think I'm wrong about *then* I'll dig in more fully to better educate myself.

[Cow Poke]

I would love to hear Joe attempt to enumerate and expound upon the bullet list campaign promises on his website.

[lilpixieofterror]

Fine, "What are the plans."

I would still refer you to his own words and you can make your own judgement. I'm comfortable with the idea that his plans are generally in alignment with those broad goals I listed since all of those things typify the Obama administration. If you can point to which ones you think I'm wrong about *then* I'll dig in more fully to better educate myself.

You put them up, explain one or two of them and why you believe they are the best course of action.

[lilpixieofterror]

I would love to hear Joe attempt to enumerate and expound upon the bullet list campaign promises on his website.

[Sparko]

In quadruplicate!

Remember when Shunyadragon was on his demanding sources kick, whenever he couldn't actually refute an argument, because he was ignorant? Chuck is doing the same thing, It's a way to pretend to be superior. If you give him sources, he just dismisses them and drags you into a derail. Your OP was just you mentioning your opinion of what you have noticed in the news, that certain democrats have been Debbie Downers and hoping for bad news because they want to hurt Trump. When you did give an example (Bill Maher) did Charles accept it? Did he say "Thanks, CP" and then go on to answer your question in the OP ("I'm just curious - what do the Dems have to campaign on in the upcoming election besides doom and gloom?)

No, he did not. Because he has no answer.

[JonathanL]

I usually don't believe or trust statements solely on the basis that they could possibly be true. Anyone can twist and turn definitions in their own mind but it seems reality tends to remain the same.

And since I don't rely on the mere possibiIity for it to be true I am simply asking for reasons and/or proofs for your claims. If there are no good reasons to believe it and all it provides is convenience we are right back to the start where I asked for reasons to believe it. It seems none of you have much to provide when it comes to that.

But the issue isn't whether you believe or trust these claims or not. The Euthyphro Dilemma claims that there are only two possibilities when it comes to God and morality, and that you have to choose one or the other, and regardless of which possibility you choose it's consequences are problematic for the Christian view of objective morality and the nature of God.

So when we raise the possibility that morality is grounded in God's immutable nature the point isn't that you're supposed to accept that it's a reality. Obviously we believe that it's true (or atleast a great deal of Christian's believe it's true), but that's not the point. The point is simply to show that the dilemma is false, and that there are other options beside the ones that the euthyphro dilemma gives us. And there is no reason for us to accept either of the options presented to us via the dilemma, rather than a third option, such as the above possibility that morality is grounded in the immutable nature of God.

[JonathanL]

None of what Leibniz writes here is in disagreement with the position that a number of people here have taken, namely that morality is grounded in God's nature. Leibniz is arguing against the position that the good is good because God chooses, or wills the good. But that's not the position that we have been presenting here.

Leibniz says that God's choices can't be the reason for the goodness of things, and I agree with him. But on the position that the good is grounded in God's nature, God's nature is exactly .

Short story even shorter, Leibniz does not state anything here that is in conflict with the view that morality is grounded in God's nature.

[Mountain Man]

I have showed you why your statements are question begging, I have pointed out which questions you have not answered (or could not answer). Feel free to have a discussion instead of relying on ad hominems.

One example will suffice. You said:

"You seemingly do not want to talk about meaning and purpose, yet still want to maintain they can only exist in some eternal perspective."

I neither said nor implied this. You accuse me of begging the question, but you can't even present my argument correctly.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that atheism is true and further assume that you and I agree on what "meaning and purpose" means within the framework of atheism. We could even state for the sake of argument that "meaning and purpose" in an atheistic universe objectively exists as a brute fact of nature like physical laws. It really doesn't matter. My question: What rational reason is there to care about "meaning and purpose" if the whole of human history will be wiped from existence in the blink of a cosmic eye? Do you have an answer? Or will it just be more questions and thinly veiled insults?

[Cow Poke]

Remember when Shunyadragon was on his demanding sources kick, whenever he couldn't actually refute an argument, because he was ignorant? Chuck is doing the same thing, It's a way to pretend to be superior. If you give him sources, he just dismisses them and drags you into a derail. Your OP was just you mentioning your opinion of what you have noticed in the news, that certain democrats have been Debbie Downers and hoping for bad news because they want to hurt Trump. When you did give an example (Bill Maher) did Charles accept it? Did he say "Thanks, CP" and then go on to answer your question in the OP ("I'm just curious - what do the Dems have to campaign on in the upcoming election besides doom and gloom?)

No, he did not. Because he has no answer.

He just loves to quibble.

[Sparko]

He just loves to quibble.

and now your thread is derailed.

[Mountain Man]

and now your thread is derailed.

Not entirely. The question was, what do Democrats (and we can include liberals in general) have besides doom and gloom? And all of Chuck's protestations and deflections seem to suggest that the answer is "Nothing".

[rogue06]

I would love to hear Joe attempt to enumerate and expound upon the bullet list campaign promises on his website.

Attempting to provide a detailed explanation -- especially the cost -- is precisely what did in Warren. Don't expect any Democrats, including even Joe "Slow Hands" Biden, to make that mistake again.

[rogue06]

Remember when Shunyadragon was on his demanding sources kick, whenever he couldn't actually refute an argument, because he was ignorant? Chuck is doing the same thing, It's a way to pretend to be superior. If you give him sources, he just dismisses them and drags you into a derail. Your OP was just you mentioning your opinion of what you have noticed in the news, that certain democrats have been Debbie Downers and hoping for bad news because they want to hurt Trump. When you did give an example (Bill Maher) did Charles accept it? Did he say "Thanks, CP" and then go on to answer your question in the OP ("I'm just curious - what do the Dems have to campaign on in the upcoming election besides doom and gloom?)

No, he did not. Because he has no answer.

They do offer one thing aside from doom and gloom and that is a visceral, all-consuming, irrational hatred of Trump.

[rogue06]

He just loves to quibble whine.

FIFY n/c

[Cow Poke]

FIFY n/c

Well, yeah, that....