3RU7AL

And...? I'm not sure why some people put the press on a pedestal. News organizations are private corporations, owned by a small handful of billionaires and larger companies. The reason behind the inane notion that journalists are these hallowed guardians of democracy who can do no wrong (except when it comes to news organizations that espouse opinions you don't like, of course, in which case you say whatever you want about them) evades me. When they talk about journalists dying in large numbers, they're talking about those covering war zones. Reporters are not only in zero danger in the United States but in fact they enjoy special privileges and protections in that, unlike literally any other profession, nobody holds them accountable for the damage they cause.

Even in Britain, none of the "Press" were convicted for herding Lady Diana to her death.

Only an NPC would say "your man"

@Orangemanbad

defamation.

This is all true, however, Trump has never said the exact words "THE MEDIA IS THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE"

what you describe is the same as the original sin theory, which has not legal basis but is philosophical/religious and not political. 

I've purchased a car, but have never killed anyone while driving a car.

this blame or responsibility you are trying to attribute is just philosophical.

I would say that is the first time I ever heard of anyone using that as a name for God.

as I said if you wish to dawn the label of murder, child abuser, rapist etc then do so. 

I purchase legal goods and services. 

My tax money is taken from me without any choice on my part.  Machine guns where purchased and send to Mexico which the drug cartels got.  I didn't vote for that idiot Obama who thought of this bright idea nor do I hold myself responsible in any way what so ever for the people murdered and crimes committed because of those actions.

Purchasing a widget from a company does not make one responsible for the actions of the ceo, company policies etc if they are not known or obvious. 

If you want to try and draw some kind of philosophical lines, that's the proper forum section, or the religious.

Now if you'd like to talk about those who supported people like Castro, or things like illegal aliens, illegal immigration, then yes they do so knowingly and willfully.

you can't name one thing that can't be linked back to something terrible, maybe 1 or 2 things, but not many at all.  By your logic you are complicate as soon are you were born. 

That's fine for philosophy and religion, otherwise it's just pedantic.

Yes we are accomplices.  Please describe your hypothetical moral theory that absolves unwitting participants or contributors.

speak for your self, don't put your judgements and morality on me.

no I respect your opinion and would defend it, even if I don't agree or don't subscribe to it. 

You have every right to carry the label of murderer, rapist or accomplice to those and more, that is your choice. 

Many religious zealots espouse original sin, they should make peace with their own conscience and stop trying to force their beliefs on others who don't wish it.

Deism isn't a God.

I am morally culpable for the suffering that I actively support, both directly and indirectly, both knowingly and unintentionally.

I am morally culpable for the historic suffering that I benefit from, both directly and indirectly, both knowingly and unintentionally.

do you consider yourself to be a rapist and murderer or an accomplice in those acts because of how you spend your money?

If they have to be justified they probably aren't axioms!

(IFF) you don't care if deportees are harmed or killed after deportation (THEN) you don't care if embryos are harmed or killed after deportation.

'care' is a very loose term.  To have or lack concern over a negative consequence is different than to cause a negative consequence.

Whether I'm concerned about somebody driving on icy roads with bald tires, has no bearing on whether I can ram the car next to me off a cliff.

Ectogenesis elegantly solves the problem of abortion.

Except that it does nothing of the sort.  It isn't currently available, and it would likely be highly immoral to implement in the vast majority if not all cases.

(IFF) citizenship, human rights and the full protection of the law are bestowed on a blastocyst at the moment of conception (THEN) every miscarriage should be thoroughly investigated as a potential manslaughter, murder, or child endangerment criminal case.  Every conception should be registered immediately with the proper authorities so a certificate of citizenship can be issued.  Any pregnant woman engaging in high-risk behavior should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

There is actually no need for any of that unless there were reason to suspect foul play.  As life at a young age is tenuous, there is a natural high level of death.  It was historically assumed that the majority of people were not evil monsters who willed the death of their own children.  As such citizenship recognition can wait until birth as this will pass the time when most deaths are likely to occur and minimize useless bureaucracy.

(IFF) every life is precious (THEN) we should protect every precious human being within our sovereign territory.  Including those accused of crimes.  Including those drinking water contaminated with lead.

If the person is drinking the lead laden water with the intention of harming the child, then fine charge them once you have proof harm has been done.  If they do not realize they are inflicting harm then they are guiltless.

Not to mention it might give the government and the workers a reason to privatize those sectors.

...but wouldn't the argument then need to demonstrate or support that, for example, the most popular current myths are likely to be the most reliable? 

If it was privatized the shut down would not effect them 

Five pages and not a single attempt at answering the question, theists? For real?? 

Not to mention it might give the government and the workers a reason to privatize those sectors.

This is what government is. It is its nature. There is no political process that makes it better. You cannot vote yourself to freedom any more than slaves could vote their way off the plantation.

Yeah, we should stick it to those billionaires by lowering their tax burden, and removing inheritance and estate tax that disproportionately targets them. That will send the desired message that little people like you will not let them wield disproportionate influence over us policy.

For example, it's been alleged that Trump once said "I love low information voters".

So now you want to kill undocumented infants?

no of course not, it's what rapist and murders do apparently (which is the start of this and what I took issue with) do you consider yourself to be a rapist and murderer or an accomplice in those acts because of how you spend your money?

The point is that if people always buy whatever is cheapest, like mindless robots

this is true on a great number of levels including why obesity is such a problem.  You can expect people to make good choices for others, when they don't or won't do it for themselves and their children.Family and myself are the highest priorities and I make no apologizes for it.

as to the rest, I find little value and productivity in the blame game.

Do you believe that giving money to people who commit crimes and atrocities makes you complicit?

if done knowingly, intentionally, perhaps.

Do you want to use your money-vote to promote slavery or human dignity?

to a small degree sure, but since my budget is such that I have to spend wisely and make it go as far as possible, my decisions are adjusted accordingly.  

Would you buy groceries from a corner store if you knew the owner was also an atrocious notorious criminal?

Would you buy groceries from a corner store if you knew the owner was treating their workers and supply chain humanely?

I would buy from whom ever had the best quality, safest product for me and my family.  If all things being equal, then the latter.

the free market is the solution and I think we agree on that,

but that does take time and lots of other conditions to benefit the workers, the abusive conditions are allowed by both the free and controlled markets in certain countries.  Change never happens as quickly as we would like, but it is happening.  If the socially conscious companies grow and thrive, that will speed up the change, but not in countries like N.K. 

Give me a comparable product to purchase that is socially conscious and I will purchase it, give me a choice.

This is why, knowing how the chemistry of the brain works, you MUST go into understanding politics with the mindset that every politician is untrustworthy... and you should never listen seriously to anything they say... and you should focus on what they actually do.

I don't necessarily disagree with that and what I have been taking issue is the reference to everyone being rapist and murderers for supporting those companies, even unknowingly.  and you...... "well stated" 

If you take those jobs away and let the people and children fend for themselves even if they starve to death is that better or worse than the original accusation?

people being exploited for they labors vs left to fend for themselves with no job or money, which would you chose?

It's still immoral and expensive to lock people up for voting for Trump.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XQFItVBKlAU

Line has nothing to do with mix.

Line is simply a limit.

Again, nobody will understand where you stand if you don't have a limit on anything.

Of course we all know that the first step towards the overturning of US democracy and the establishment of a communist oppressive government is by passing central funded healthcare, making it illegal to dump poison in the water, and to make Election Day a federal holiday.

That's the problem. Nobody can understand where your principles are when you have no limits on anything.

You never rejected it either. You specifically said there was no line you would draw.

I propose that we need to curtail the amount of Socialism currently present in the USA mix considering our long standing and growing debt problem which has grown faster than the projected GDP growths can accommodate.

If that is your excuse for having no limits on Socialism, so be it.

There is no line then?

So to you it would be perfectly acceptable for the government to control all key industries like energy, healthcare, and food production?

This shows a serious lack of critical thinking skills when you are unable to draw a line at too much Socialism.

On one hand you claim that Socialism can work if you do it right, then you demonstrate that there is no limit to how much control a country should hand over to the government....

completely disregarding how corrupt the USA government already is.

I can't take any proposals on Socialism seriously without some limit. Sure there is a mix, but all mixes have limits. You wouldn't use 98% butter in a chocolate cake recipe. There are limits to all mixes.

Considering our growing debt problem, it's likely the USA has already crossed that line, you just are not aware of it.