Stephen Harper had plan to unite Alberta’s right as Conservative Party

[Nick Danger]

We are not.

Sure we are. It's just that it takes work and as a society most of us have become very lazy in that aspect. Lots of people treat each other with courtesy and respect and live a morally righteous life. I think most of us still know the difference between right and wrong, but not enough care.

 

[Angstrom]

Sure we are. It's just that it takes work and as a society most of us have become very lazy in that aspect. Lots of people treat each other with courtesy and respect and live a morally righteous life.

I disagree. People are nice when it suits them to be kind. I've seen the most righteous people work cash jobs while on EI on the same day he criticized rich people of storing money off shore. A bunch of bleeding hypocrites the whole lot of them. When I see someone claiming higher moral ground, that's a automatic sign of someone who is full of ****.

There is some truth to your social construct, but it is limited and breaks down very fast if constant accountability is disrupted.

It's not even close to the grand Utopia BS you imagine it to be.

 

[Nick Danger]

Perhaps you have an accurate view of what is, but I don't share your pessimism for would could be. We still know what's wrong even as we do the deed. That has to count for something.

 

[Angstrom]

Perhaps you have an accurate view of what is, but I don't share your pessimism for would could be. We still know what's wrong even as we do the deed. That has to count for something.

To a certain degree. Let's explore this idea. If you are right then how do you feel about something as simple as g-walking, Or not coming to a full and complete stop at a intersection.
My question is, where do we set the line? Who decides? Would you follow every law to the letter?

Because that's what your basically advocating. The Utopia would require that all humans follow all laws to the letter. You can't start picking and choosing the ones you personally don't think matter, Because the second you do that, You basically fall back to what we are now. People pick and chose to not pay taxes, the same way they don't do a full stop.


And here are other questions, do you perform a full stop at a intersection every time? Have you ever avoided paying tax?
Imagine if we all followed every law by the letter. Are you sure that's what you really want? We might as well all be robots.

I'm not sure I'm optimists for the utopia you imagine. I'd even say, be careful what you wish for. :lol:

Higher moral standards is something we hold others accoutable too. Not ourselves. Because I'm sure every Canadian in Canada has avoided paying a little tax at least once in their lives, but we all get our panties in a bunch when the rich do it.

Humanity has gone to great lengths to creat self accountability of higher moral. We have police, courts , prisons, punishments, we invented the boogey man to scare kids if they didn't go to sleep, then we even made God, the all seeing all knowing identity who would punish you for all your sin's.

But there is no higher morality. All these people do the right thing to not get punished.

To not face accountability of their action. That it's the death sentence or eternal Hell. People need to fear consequences at all time.

 

[Nick Danger]

But there is no higher morality. All these people do the right thing to not get punished.
To not face accountability of their action. That it's the death sentence or eternal Hell. People need to fear consequences at all time.

I can't accept that as true as there is too much evidence to the contrary. You're suggesting that without big brother looking over our shoulders that everyone would behave miserably?

Your examples of people breaking rules kind of misses my point. Sure I push the limits in some aspects, but my behavior is generally governed by its potential effect on others. I might push the speed limit on the highway by a few clicks, but not if the prevailing flow isn't matching that speed. Coming to a full stop at stop signs might take on a degree of "optional" if I'm the only one within sight. These are not the sort of things I'm talking about. The degradation of societal norms of personal interaction is a good example. Consider the erosion of what used to be considered "good manners" since the onset of instant communication via internet and cel phone technology. Do you treat others the same in a discussion forum like this one as you would in a real life, face-to-face conversation? I notice that the norm among many of the regulars here is to disagree with the use of insults and name-calling rather than any form of objective argument. To me that is not "right", in the aspect that unless I'm way out to lunch here, that most of these people wouldn't dream of acting that way in person.

You are right in that it is a matter of where we draw the line. To bring this back into the realm of right vs left philosophies, we have come to take blatantly socialist programs like free education and cheap healthcare for granted where in the pure capitalist view these services should only go to those who can afford them. Now without exception, all the major political parties in this country stick pretty close to center on the right/left scale, moving but a few degrees in either direction. The big differences come in the extent of society's support for the less fortunate among us, and the freedoms we grant to the engines of commerce. Just about all our political differences will come down to money, who has it and who doesn't, how much is enough for what we do. In principle we have a decent system, it should work okay if it wasn't for people expecting too much for their particular contribution. And that goes on at both ends of the scale. By your estimation, we all want more than we are entitled to and I disagree. I think there are plenty of people content with their position in the big picture. That's not to say that we all wouldn't enjoy a bigger slice of the pie, but those of us who would resort to dishonesty to achieve that bigger slice are in the minority from my perspective.

 

[Angstrom]

I can't accept that as true as there is too much evidence to the contrary. You're suggesting that without big brother looking over our shoulders that everyone would behave miserably?

I didn't suggest that. Because it's easy to see its commonly in your own self intrest to behave nicely. What I'm saying is without constant accountability people would stop behaving Nicely when it is *not* in their best self intrest to do so. Do you understand the difference?

 

[Nick Danger]

I didn't suggest that. Because it's easy to see its commonly in your own self intrest to behave nicely. What I'm saying is without constant accountability people would stop behaving Nicely when it is *not* in their best self intrest to do so. Do you understand the difference?

Are you saying that anyone and everyone will resort to unethical behavior if there is some personal gain to be made unless forced not to by some sort of governing authority? That we are naturally reluctant to "do the right thing" when it means some degree of sacrifice?

 

[Angstrom]

Are you saying that anyone and everyone will resort to unethical behavior if there is some personal gain to be made unless forced not to by some sort of governing authority? That we are naturally reluctant to "do the right thing" when it means some degree of sacrifice?

I'd say yes, because going out of your way to do the right thing to be seen as righteous or have a feeling of self worth as better then others is acting in self intrest in itself.

That's how I know these self righteous on a high horse twits are full of ****. They want the right thing until it effects their own life. Then they are against it.

You could argue this is a social construct of people competing to be seen as the most goody touchoo bunch of bleeding hart to compete and see who is the nicest twit.

 

[Nick Danger]

So doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing is self-serving in that the feeling of having done the right thing is a form of reward?

In a way I can accept that as it is certainly preferable to the feelings that come from personal gain through unethical behavior.

Again, to bring this back to the original topic, would it be fair to say that the splintering of the right in Alberta has been the result personal greed and power-mongering within and between the different right-wing parties?

 

[Angstrom]

So doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing is self-serving in that the feeling of having done the right thing is a form of reward?

In a way I can accept that as it is certainly preferable to the feelings that come from personal gain through unethical behavior.

Again, to bring this back to the original topic, would it be fair to say that the splintering of the right in Alberta has been the result personal greed and power-mongering within and between the different right-wing parties?

I would only argue that the right sees righteousness and righteous people for what they really are. Full of ****.

 

[Nick Danger]

That could also be argues that the right is devoid of morality and ethics unless it is forced upon them?

Idealism does have the benefit of giving us something to aspire to, as opposed to a defeatist surrender to mediocrity. Why wouldn't one want to be a better person?

 

[darkbeaver]

Stephen Harper had plan E I E I O then up his shute was stuffed the plan E I E I O

 

[tay]

Another gooey Clingon brought to you by the sphincter of Analfloss.

You are shooting the messenger.

This story was brought to you by John Ivison of the Nat/Sun Media.

And in this CBC report, it says Harper could indeed still step in......

If Alberta's unite the right movement doesn't get its act together, Ottawa Conservatives, including former prime minister Stephen Harper, could well step in, says Ian Brodie.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/stephen-harper-alberta-unite-the-right-1.3582342

 

[Angstrom]

That could also be argues that the right is devoid of morality and ethics unless it is forced upon them?
Idealism does have the benefit of giving us something to aspire to, as opposed to a defeatist surrender to mediocrity. Why wouldn't one want to be a better person?

I rather have the genuine kindness of the right, then the fake selfish kindness of the left.

I can't stand people who are nice only to look like they are nice.
Nice people are simply nice without interior motives. I know more people on the right who are more genuinely nice then left people who are just hypocrites.

The left seems to outnumber the right in niceness, but it's not even genuine. most of it is fake.

They just want to be perceived as nicer.

The cause they champion usually is only secondary, to their own personal righteous glory.

Look everyone at how nice I am.

The left are nice with other people's money. But not their own.

 

[Nick Danger]

I rather have the genuine kindness of the right, then the fake selfish kindness of the left.

I can't stand people who are nice only to look like they are nice.
Nice people are simply nice without interior motives. I know more people on the right who are more genuinely nice then left people who are just hypocrites.

The left seems to outnumber the right in niceness, but it's not even genuine. most of it is fake.

They just want to be perceived as nicer.

The cause they champion usually is only secondary, to their own personal righteous glory.

Look everyone at how nice I am.

Experience had shown me that sincerity is not the sole domain of either political wing. Conservatism, being honest to its capitalist roots is all about the bottom line. If there was no "face" to be gained through cheap healthcare and free school, by your own admission they would leave everyone on their own. I see that some of the big oilsands operations are ponying up support for their workers. Is that out of the generosity of their hearts or because they know it will play well to the media at a time when the deck is stacked against the fossil fuel industry at the moment.

I've said before that neither a capitalist nor a pure socialist approach will work in Canada. A mixture of the two is what will work, it's what is working for us except for those from both persuasions who are taking more than they have earned.

 

[Angstrom]

Being righteous for the left is like a front yard lawn competition.

Of who has the greenest grass.

Experience had shown me that sincerity is not the sole domain of either political wing. Conservatism, being honest to its capitalist roots is all about the bottom line. If there was no "face" to be gained through cheap healthcare and free school, by your own admission they would leave everyone on their own. I see that some of the big oilsands operations are ponying up support for their workers. Is that out of the generosity of their hearts or because they know it will play well to the media at a time when the deck is stacked against the fossil fuel industry at the moment.

I've said before that neither a capitalist nor a pure socialist approach will work in Canada. A mixture of the two is what will work, it's what is working for us except for those from both persuasions who are taking more than they have earned.

The NDP was against oil until..... I think the left owns the title of most dishonest by a long shot :lol:

I rather have honesty of the right, then the unicorns and rainbows of the left.

I know exactly what to expect from the right. The left flip flop regularly.

 

[Nick Danger]

Being righteous for the left is like a front yard lawn competition.

Of who has the greenest grass.



The NDP was against oil until..... I think the left owns the title of most dishonest by a long shot :lol:

I rather have honesty of the right, then the unicorns and rainbows of the left.

I know exactly what to expect from the right. The left flip flop regularly.

Is this really a right/left argument here, or is it more of an ethical/unethical thing? For every anti-left wing example you can present I can counter with a similar case from the right. "Honesty" is completely subjective on both sides of the fence, a politician is a politician. For all their prancing and ponitificating, under the skin the vast majority of them are in it for themselves. Throw a nickel to the poor, take a dollar for themselves. Being an uncivil, immoral person knows no political boundaries.

For discussion's sake tell me why, in your considered opinion, the NDP are now in power in Alberta?

 

[Angstrom]

A combination of protest and vote splitting.

 

[Nick Danger]

A combination of protest and vote splitting.

I agree. A couple more questions, in your opinion what was it about the Prentice government that people were protesting and why didn't those votes fall to the Wildrose Party?

 

[petros]

Take everything away and people will form groups to help each other. Self-preservation requires a group effort.