I hate to admit it, but I to listen to/watch “Morning Joe” on MSNBC as I read the paper in the morning and check out the prattling yahoos on this forum. Not that I’m such a big fan of Scarboro and the litany of plastic heads that spew forth their views…it’s just that I vomit less frequently than when I watch Fox and Friends, CNN or any of the sugary sweet network morning shows.
My beef is the latest profit taking scheme that NBC/MSNBC have availed themselves of. “Going Green.” No, I don’t think for one minute that these network executives have between them one complete soul, so I don’t think there is anything sincere about this effort.
Sorry to sound so downright negative, so early in the day, but I really had fads. Especially those being preached with every bit the fervor of the cheesy televangelist.
It's OK DACO. Going Green makes sense. If they are doing it for the wrong reasons, that is their problem. Take a look at the new Subaru Plant in Indiana. Their goal is Zero Landfill Waste. I think that is pretty cool, even if they don't make it.
Ah, does the end always justify the means, or just when your particular sermon is being preached?
"Ah, does the end always justify the means, or just when your particular sermon is being preached?"
In the real world, daco, things aren't always black-and-white.
Sometimes the ends are desirable and the means are relatively benign, like when we scold a child with the goal of teaching them our values. Sometimes the means are disruptive to a few but serve a greater societal good, like in certain cases of eminent domain which make possible the building of a highway. Sometimes the means cause significant dislocation, suffering and death, such as the military draft in WWII, which made possible the allied victory over the evil of fascism.
Sorry to cloud your simple world with complexity.
Oh don't worry doc. You haven't clouded anything. Nothing complex at all about your view of society. Not quite sure what "black-and-white" has to do with the discussion, but okay.
You and Snidely probably won't be too upset in hearing that there are many of us out here that may disagree with your opinions of what will "serve a greater societal good." Is that what makes us simple?
Is there a particular reason why you nearly always include an insult in your responses?
Jacket, surely you wouldn't argue in favor of consequentialism would you?
Well, daco, I'm always glad to help.
The black-and-white reference is to this bit of snark that you posted:
"Ah, does the end always justify the means, or just when your particular sermon is being preached?"
The idea that the ends either (a) "always" justifies the means or (b) "just" when a particular POV is advocated is a false dichotomy, a "black-and-white" view in colloquial parlance.
"Is there a particular reason why you nearly always include an insult in your responses?"
Yes. Because I "nearly always" do so in response to a snarky and/or insulting post, like yours was. You seem to be able to dish it out with alacrity, but just as eagerly feign injury when you are served in kind.
My post was neither meant to be insulting nor snarky. It was a legitimate question of Snidely. Perhaps if you understood some of our previous discussions you wouldn't have commented.
You were not part of the discussion to that point, so I really don't see how you could have been offended by either snark or insult.
None of this has anything to do with the original post.