I remember debating with a group of people about whether or not zero sum social relations - IE merit and preference based relationships - were inherently amoral.
The liberals felt it was, the libertarians didn't care but felt they should have the right to do as they please, and the conservatives couldn't believe the bullshit they were hearing.
Because you either can or can't do something, and putting something on the books removes the cultural gray-space such things should exist in. Thus the RINO and Libertarian solution is to clarify what the government can't do and thereby invite the government in at a later date by establishing the governments mandate, and the more hands off conservative approach is for everyone to fuck off out of our business because it's no one else's.
The go to response about morality should be bridging the "scale" at which moral standards are applied. Some examples to follow:
Pets are off-limits for animal testing, but animals for animal testing are good and anyone that doesn't support it should be denied the benefits of such research.
All Americans are equal regardless of skin color, but American's are inherently inequal dependent on their skin color and politics.
Black White Nationalists aren't Black.
Pets aren't for Animal Testing.
Americans aren't all equal.
Democrats are evil.
I get exactly what you're saying, but instead of doing what progressives and our less than consistent Libertarian and Anarchist allies with morals would do: say it straight and with purpose.
Democrats are worse than evil because they not only fail at what they attempt to achieve, they make things worse and then blame everyone that tried to tell them they'd fail.
Or, to make it even simpler:
"Democrats are worse than evil because they feel nothing but hate for those they feel need their help."
When someone disagrees you can then point out the inconsistency like with "pets aren't for animal testing" but "animals for animal testing are good." Democrats claim they want to help everyone, but some people resist their help and actively work against "their" own interests. They'll either have to admit that they believe that your own preferred action or inaction by your government is moral to ignore, for your own good, or they reveal their preference is to have power and to decide who qualifies for society improving animal testing and who gets to be their pet.
So while we can know and respect liberals in our lives who live consistently everywhere but at the ballot box, we don't have to sugar coat things or handle them with kids gloves when they very clearly demonstrate the ability to use moral reasoning and economic 'votes" by buying cruelty free products and organics. In fact you're a lot more likely to "convert" such people by not calling them evil, but instead by making them agree that the preservation of legal gray spaces is good for them too: doing so by appealing to those areas of their lives where they've invested their real world money. Whether its weed, food, life style, or pets doesn't matter, pedes just need to attenuate their arguments with those capable of reason to the particular person they're arguing with.
I'll just recommend to people that might have read this far exactly what I'd recommend to every less than able street preacher that ever shouted in my general direction: preach at church when its your turn, and talk loudly everywhere else whenever you're trying to make a point. If you're scared someone might over hear you, the problems not what you have to say but you. If you're indifferent to whether or not anyone appreciates the time you spend talking to them, maybe just shut the hell up and don't waste everyone else's time just so you can get your rocks off by receiving either scorn or adulation.
Just chipping in to say don't preach to the choir friends!
I remember debating with a group of people about whether or not zero sum social relations - IE merit and preference based relationships - were inherently amoral.
The liberals felt it was, the libertarians didn't care but felt they should have the right to do as they please, and the conservatives couldn't believe the bullshit they were hearing.
Because you either can or can't do something, and putting something on the books removes the cultural gray-space such things should exist in. Thus the RINO and Libertarian solution is to clarify what the government can't do and thereby invite the government in at a later date by establishing the governments mandate, and the more hands off conservative approach is for everyone to fuck off out of our business because it's no one else's.
The go to response about morality should be bridging the "scale" at which moral standards are applied. Some examples to follow:
Pets are off-limits for animal testing, but animals for animal testing are good and anyone that doesn't support it should be denied the benefits of such research.
All Americans are equal regardless of skin color, but American's are inherently inequal dependent on their skin color and politics.
Black White Nationalists aren't Black.
Pets aren't for Animal Testing.
Americans aren't all equal.
Democrats are evil.
I get exactly what you're saying, but instead of doing what progressives and our less than consistent Libertarian and Anarchist allies with morals would do: say it straight and with purpose.
Democrats are worse than evil because they not only fail at what they attempt to achieve, they make things worse and then blame everyone that tried to tell them they'd fail.
Or, to make it even simpler:
"Democrats are worse than evil because they feel nothing but hate for those they feel need their help."
When someone disagrees you can then point out the inconsistency like with "pets aren't for animal testing" but "animals for animal testing are good." Democrats claim they want to help everyone, but some people resist their help and actively work against "their" own interests. They'll either have to admit that they believe that your own preferred action or inaction by your government is moral to ignore, for your own good, or they reveal their preference is to have power and to decide who qualifies for society improving animal testing and who gets to be their pet.
So while we can know and respect liberals in our lives who live consistently everywhere but at the ballot box, we don't have to sugar coat things or handle them with kids gloves when they very clearly demonstrate the ability to use moral reasoning and economic 'votes" by buying cruelty free products and organics. In fact you're a lot more likely to "convert" such people by not calling them evil, but instead by making them agree that the preservation of legal gray spaces is good for them too: doing so by appealing to those areas of their lives where they've invested their real world money. Whether its weed, food, life style, or pets doesn't matter, pedes just need to attenuate their arguments with those capable of reason to the particular person they're arguing with.
I'll just recommend to people that might have read this far exactly what I'd recommend to every less than able street preacher that ever shouted in my general direction: preach at church when its your turn, and talk loudly everywhere else whenever you're trying to make a point. If you're scared someone might over hear you, the problems not what you have to say but you. If you're indifferent to whether or not anyone appreciates the time you spend talking to them, maybe just shut the hell up and don't waste everyone else's time just so you can get your rocks off by receiving either scorn or adulation.
Just chipping in to say don't preach to the choir friends!