Is There A Right Side In Politics?

[Unfettered]

So, there are lawyers, judges and lawmakers who are unable to understand that the Declaration of Independence is part of US law, but you have figured it all out?

The Declaration is part of US law.
"A" is the first letter in the English alphabet.

Two simple statements; easy to understand; easy to confirm.

I personally don't understand the difficulty there, but my experience in life leads me to accept that it is guaranteed that there are lawyers, judges and lawmakers whose opinions and actions indicate that they may not understand that the Declaration is part of US law. As support, we can look to the US's history with slavery, where we clearly see that the beliefs, agenda or motivations of those in positions of authority indicate utter blindness (at best; indifference at worst) to the truths in the Declaration. Even many of the the crafters of the Constitution had to have their arms twisted to provide for those truths in that document, which is why bill of rights is an amendment—when it should have been Article 1! The truth, then, is that human beings think about, understand and value such principles far less than they would claim they do, unless and until it is their own interests in the crosshairs. Then their interest and understanding are claimed to be expert-level sharp. Though I've heard people whose rights were on the chopping block defend the idea that their natural rights come from government! "Easy come, easy go." I wonder how many such persons would be found among those whose understanding is that the Declaration isn't the law?

On this forum, as in other places, I have found it alarming how few Americans defend the Declaration, when it is the most important defense of their rights that exists. Folks treat it like an afterthought; but in the realm of US civics and law, it is God.

 

[Unfettered]

You see? You ducked. I asked you very precisely "What is your answer to your own question."

Now, clearly I made a small slip in quoting "if we were to ask him if he he agrees that a man with homosexual interests has the right to pursue happiness," it would have been clear to an honest (not sophist) debater that I meant "you" rather than "he." I understand nit-picking and its uses, but it's not something I use, nor appreciate.

Asking clarifying questions before offering an answer is good discourse; it isn't "ducking."

The question I asked, I answered directly, as you requested. Answered it the first time you asked. No ducking. Not sure why you're still talking about ducking.

Questions 2 and 3 are your questions and, at my request, require your clarification. From whose perspective are you asking me to answer your two questions?

Edit: Nevermind. I see clearly now your clarification. I initially misread the line in the second paragraph and was left wondering why you just didn't clarify. Here are your answers:

#2: It is self-evident that a man with homosexual interests has the right to marry any consenting adult agreeable to the union.

#3: I think #2 answers this, but yes, a homosexual relationship and marriage of consenting adults fits squarely within the agreed-upon moral standard of the United States of America.

 

[Ponder This]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

It depends on the election. Sometimes there is no wrong side to vote for, sometimes there is no right side to vote for, sometimes there are more than two sides. To have a wrong side, you need to have a side that is immoral or unethical. For example, if you have a candidate that takes actions in the interests of powerful lobbies instead of taking actions in the interests of the constituents he represents.

Of course, there are many many issues and each issue can have its own sides, which complicates the question of which side is the right side and which side is the wrong side, because a candidate may do the right thing on one issue and then do the wrong thing on another issue, which makes life for the voter very difficult. In such a morally gray area, voters have to try and vote for the candidate that is taking the right side (not the wrong side) on the most important issues.

And the priority of issues can vary from voter to voter. The Muslims in Michigan may see the Israeli-Palestine conflict as the most important issue. People who live on the Mexico border in Texas may see illegal immigration as the most important issue. If you live in Ukraine, probably the most important issue is the Russian invasion that your country is fighting off (but elections were suspended because of the war). If you live in Russia, the most important issue might be... hmm, what is their most important issue? Does their election matter? Won't Putin be re-elected anyways? Some opposition leaders are sitting that election out altogether, the anti-war candidate Boris Nadezhdin isn't being allowed to run against Putin at all. The question for the voter isn't even what side to take, but whether or not to vote for Putin.

Of course, for some voters, the important thing is to vote for the side that wins so that they can brag to their friends that they voted for the side that won the election and didn't vote for the side that lost. For them, the right side is the winning side and the wrong side is the losing side, regardless of issues.

The complications don't stop there. Let;s suppose that you have multiple right sides in an election and at least one wrong side. This is bad even though there are right sides in the election. For example, suppose it is right to vote for Lord of the Rings movie scenes. There is a poll with five Lord of the Rings movie scenes and one other scene from a wrong movie (not Lord of the Rings). The vote for the best scene can be split and the wrong scene (not Lord of the Rings) can win.

Ideally, there are (exactly) two opposing candidates.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

^ what a silly noise generator

 

[Rival]

^ what a silly noise generator

Given I was told in another thread that my vote was wrong by several people I rather hoped they'd show up here and explain how a vote can be wrong.

As I suspected, none did.

 

[Debater Slayer]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

It depends on one's values, priorities, and what the vote entails.

I don't believe that morality can be objectively established, so humans decide what is "right" or "wrong." Nature itself doesn't care. Of course, this doesn't negate the fact that some limits are almost universally agreed upon by humans: anyone who supports murder or theft, for example, will almost universally be condemned by people, and those who don't condemn either behavior are highly likely to be seen as dangerous or morally bankrupt individuals—and rightfully so, in my opinion.

So, in that sense, votes can be considered "right" or "wrong" by most people depending on which outcomes they maximize or minimize: most humans will probably agree that a vote directly intended to support, say, mass murder is wrong.

 

[Colt]

And is there a wrong side?

To vote for?

People vote their ideology weather it’s ultimately good for everyone or not.

 

[Altfish]

Of course. The side I vote for is the right side. If you vote for another side, you're voting for the wrong one.

If you disagree, sorry, my ego is too inflated to see your side.

In the UK, with our unfair and distorted electoral system, I rarely vote for the 'right' side. Instead I use my vote to vote for who ever is most likely to beat the 'wrong' side.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In the UK, with our unfair and distorted electoral system, I rarely vote for the 'right' side. Instead I use my vote to vote for who ever is most likely to beat the 'wrong' side.

I find it sad when one is forced to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than casting a vote in favor of a candidate or party they feel good about voting for.

 

[Altfish]

I find it sad when one is forced to vote for the lesser of two evils rather than casting a vote in favor of a candidate or party they feel good about voting for.

There are more than 2 choices in the UK.
In a General Election I usually vote Labour; in Local Elections I vote LibDem; when we were in Europe (it was a PR based election) I vote Green.