UPDATE — Some good news — it wasn’t the real Capitol Hill switchboard. Kudos to the Stop the ACLU site for posting a prominent correction. That is one of the reasons I trust them and various other conservative sites. When they make a mistake it isn’t put on page 19 in small font, if published at all. It is front and center. Here’s the whole story.
I have finally tracked down what this number is. Apparently it is a left-wing group that uses this 1-800 number as a re-direct to the Capitol Hill switchboard. You call the number, hear the message, and then it re-directs you to the real switchboard. The message is not being hosted on the government service.
This is not the normal number of the Capitol Hill switchboard.
Well, we have gotten to the bottom of this Capitol Hill switchboard number business. It is really the work of a left-wing group called Families USA. They are trying to pass off this 1-800 number as that of the switchboard, but it is not. (Here is an ad from a few years ago where they feature the number.)
But isn’t it interesting how these lefty groups have to lie to their own people? I mean, they are selling this as the number to “contact your Reps and Senators” as if it IS the Hill switchboard. This lefty group is even misleading its own folks! Brazen, eh?
—–
And what would the media and the Left have thought if the Bush Administration had done it?
See Capitol Hill Switchboard Illegally Being Used to Push Obamacare? I called it myself and confirmed that this is the message you’ll get before being patched through to your members of Congress:
Thank you for calling your Representative and your Senators.
Please urge them to vote yes on health insurance reform. Because the American people can no longer wait for more choices, lower costs, and coverage we can count on.
The best comment:
I have to say, this message is frightening. We can’t even call our representatives without being hit over the head by the socialized healthcare message. Not to mention the fact that the message is a bald-faced lie. Obama’s plan will not give us “more choices,” Obama’s plan will not “lower costs,” and Obamacare will not give us better coverage.
The last time I looked, Obama was not in charge of congress, (if he was they would already have passed a comprehensive health care reform bill, and he would have signed it) I you are upset at this message direct your anger to congressional leaders not Obama.
Rick, the question was, “Is this legal?,” not to mention, “Is it appropriate?” and “How would the Left have reacted if Bush had done it?” Your non sequitor Bush hatred is irrelevant, unless you were trying (and failing) to say that as much as you hate Bush and blame him for all your problems in life that you would have given the Republican majority a pass if they had made a similar phone recording for a legislative agenda that you strenuously opposed.
Please save your tantrums for your own page.
What’s scary is the number of people – you included – who are prepared to swallow this whole, and then regurgitate it as proof of their worst fears. So now that stoptheaclu has printed a correction to the story, will you just stop your rhetoric? Or will you just plough on regardless?
Thanks for letting me know of the update. Glad to see the Stop the ACLU folks are one of those high integrity, trustworthy blogs that are quick to admit when they are mistaken (unlike the fraudulent Lefty folks who posted the fake number to begin with).
Do you think they should have perhaps checked the story before writing it? Do you think you should have perhaps checked the story before writing it?
For future reference, here’s how you could have checked.
1. Google “Capitol Hill switchboard”. The first link is for the Congress website.
2. Visit the Congress website and note the number given for the Capitol Hill switchboard.
3. Compare that number with the number in the stoptheaclu blogpost. Notice that they are different.
I know, I know. It’s a lot of work. Took me all of 20 seconds.
The original article was bull, start to finish. No source, no checking, no intelligence. An “update” isn’t enough – they should rewrite it completely and apologise for misleading people. But they won’t. “Citizen journalism” in action – and the reason why American political discourse is in the toilet.
Merkur, thanks so much for the Monday morning laughs. I’m so glad to see that the moral relativist / agnostic (or whatever the term is) found something to get so excited about. Not abortion, where 3,000+ innocent human beings will get crushed today, not the blatant lies of a Lefty group that sought to trick its followers (and happened to do so to Conservatives as well), not Obama & Co.’s endless lies and creeping Socialism, and so on, but on a quickly corrected blog post.
And thanks for giving me another opportunity to explain why sites like Stop the ACLU are so superior to the “real” media. Go research how much they covered on ACORN and when, and especially how one of the Big 3 anchors (Charles Gibson) didn’t even know the story existed anywhere! That’s the journalism you are holding up as an ideal, and that’s the real reason the discourse is in the toilet (that, and how they shilled for Obama, were 18-1 negative on Palin, etc.).
Again, note how quickly that site (and mine, for that matter) made the correction — and where they made it (i.e., front and center and not buried somewhere). Think you’ll get that from the MSM when they make a mistake? Good luck!
“Not abortion, where 3,000+ innocent human beings will get crushed today, not the blatant lies of a Lefty group that sought to trick its followers (and happened to do so to Conservatives as well), not Obama & Co.’s endless lies and creeping Socialism, and so on, but on a quickly corrected blog post.”
I’m unlikely to get exercised about abortion, since I don’t share your view that 3000+ innocent human beings will get crushed today (which you don’t believe either, by the way – the proof being your inaction in the face of this alleged holocaust). I’m unlikely to get exercised about the lies of a Lefty group since neither you or stoptheaclu or the originator of this bullshit meme has provided any evidence of their involvement – and unlike you, I like to check facts before shooting my mouth of. And I’m unlikely to get exercised about Obama’s lies because politicicians lie for a living; and I’m unlikely to get exercised about their “creeping Socialism” because it. Doesn’t. Actually. Exist. Except in the minds of Americans who think that “Socialism” = anything the government does that involves social issues.
So you don’t believe the scientific facts that the unborn are human beings (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony) or do you think they are guilty of crimes deserving crushing and dismemberment without anesthetic (wow, you must be super-duper-pro-capital punishment)? Or do you disagree with the figure? (Hey, even Planned Parenthood will support that.)
My inaction? Heh. Yeah, other than this blog, my significant contributions of time and money to CareNet Pregnancy Center and other pro-life endeavors, etc. Oh, you mean I don’t resort to violence over it? Gee, you guys love that argument. Only then you jump to the other side and scream, “Oh, the humanity, someone killed George Tiller and 5 other abortionists” while you ignore the pro-lifer who was recently murdered.
You mean facts like the humanity of those killed via abortion?
So abortion is no big deal. And lies by politicans don’t bother you. Check. But if a highly reliable blog makes a mistake that is really bad (even though they quickly correct it) and it results in you writing comment after comment about it. Check. Gotta love your moral compass.
Oh, and don’t swear on my blog again.
“So you don’t believe the scientific facts that the unborn are human beings (http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony) or do you think they are guilty of crimes deserving crushing and dismemberment without anesthetic?”
No, I mean I don’t share your view of abortion. I phrased my comment poorly by accepting your framing of it.
“Yeah, other than this blog, my significant contributions of time and money to CareNet Pregnancy Center and other pro-life endeavors, etc. Oh, you mean I don’t resort to violence over it?”
Yeah, basically. If I knew that innocent human beings were being killed by the government in my town, I like to think I’d do a little bit more than write a blog about it, or give a bit of my income to some NGO. People’s true beliefs are shown in their actions – or in your case, inaction – so while I believe that you care about the issue, I don’t believe that your rhetoric is anything other than rhetoric.
“You mean facts like the humanity of those killed via abortion?”
No.
“But if a highly reliable blog makes a mistake that is really bad (even though they quickly correct it) and it results in you writing comment after comment about it. Check. Gotta love your moral compass.”
What moral compass?
Then please clarify. Do you deny the scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being, or do you think it is acceptable to kill innocent human beings. I’d be thrilled with one straight answer from you, if that is possible. Put away your “moral skeptic” shield for a moment. It is really quite binary.
What a spectacular liar you are (but I imagine your moral skepticism gives you a pass on that). I give my time and money and back up my words. You, meanwhile, choose to deny the immorality of abortion by playing word games with your “moral skepticism,” as if you are straining mightily to determine if it is ok to kill unborn human beings and you’ll take action as soon as you figure it out.
My point exactly.
And yes, you are on moderation. I detest the wimpiness of moral relativists / skeptics and give them a short leash. The really, really fun part is that you can’t complain (or at least you shouldn’t). But you did, of course — because while you can’t decide if human beings can be chopped up for selfish reasons you are 100% sure that I shouldn’t moderate you! No skepticism there, eh?
“Do you deny the scientific fact that abortion kills an innocent human being, or do you think it is acceptable to kill innocent human beings.”
a. Abortion kills a human being, but it is acceptable to kill human beings in certain situations.
b. The rights we assign human beings varies depending on their circumstances, and I do not assign the same rights to a foetus as I do to a woman.
c. However the foetus is still a human being, abortion is still undesirable and we should work to minimize it as far as possible.
Personally I think we should take a two-pronged approach. First, focus on prevention rather than abortion – better education and access to contraception. Second, tight regulation with close oversight and regular review. Clear enough? This is a simplified version, but I realise it might be a bit too nuanced for you.
“What a spectacular liar you are (but I imagine your moral skepticism gives you a pass on that). I give my time and money and back up my words. You, meanwhile, choose to deny the immorality of abortion by playing word games with your “moral skepticism,” as if you are straining mightily to determine if it is ok to kill unborn human beings and you’ll take action as soon as you figure it out.”
I think I’ve made my position clear, although obviously it’s open to change if I’m presented with a sufficiently strong argument. My point is not that you don’t feel strongly about abortion – you clearly do. My point is that your argument that this is baby-murder is only a rhetorical position and your actual beliefs are not that strong.
“But you did, of course — because while you can’t decide if human beings can be chopped up for selfish reasons you are 100% sure that I shouldn’t moderate you! No skepticism there, eh?”
You continue to confuse moral skepticism with other types of skepticism, and at this stage it’s starting to look like a deliberate strategy to avoid meeting my points.
Oh great! The moral skeptic thinks he can decide what rights to apply to which human beings. That’s just swell.
Glad you concede the humanity, but if the mother thinks it doesn’t deserve life then who cares what you think? You can’t be sure of any moral thinking.
I won’t be moderating until later today so don’t expect quick turns. I’ll post whatever I feel like.
I apologise. It’s not a deliberate strategy to avoid meeting my points. It seems increasingly clear that you simply don’t grasp those points in the first place.
Apology accepted, thanks.
But I think that the “problem” is that I do grasp the points and know how to point out how they fail.
“The moral skeptic thinks he can decide what rights to apply to which human beings.”
Exactly. Part of my position is that rights are social constructs which we assign to others.
And my position is that when some human beings (i.e., the ones with power) get to decide which other human beings get to keep living, bad things happen.
I would tend to agree. That’s why we need to ensure that power is removed from the top of hierarchy and decentralised as much as possible to empower individuals (in the context of their communities). In the case of abortion, the foetus is not able to make decisions and so the furthest extent that the power can be decentralised to is the mother.
We “need” to ensure something? But why? With no moral absolutes that is just your opinion.
And in my opinion, yours is a rather bizarre opinion. Infants can’t make decisions either. Does that mean the power is decentralized to the mother or father to kill the child? Of course not. The location of the human being in question doesn’t change her value.
It is just an opinion, but I am perfectly entitled to it, and I am perfectly entitled to attempt to persuade others of it.
Power is decentralised to mothers and fathers to make decisions regarding their infants. Usefully this demonstrates that infants have a different set of rights to adults. Power is not given to parents to kill their infants but is to their foetuses, because infants have a different set of rights to foetuses, and both have a different set of rights to adults. You may disagree with that, but it’s reasonably consistent with the rest of my views.
Nothing wrong with that, except that you think you are morally right and are too chicken to say so.
I come across a lot of really bad arguments that people use to rationalize the destruction of the unborn. Yours falls into the “let’s conflate the right to life with some other right” category. Wasn’t that easy? Your argument works like this.
A. Some people have different rights than others — e.g., voting, parental decisions.
B. The right to life is a right.
C. Therefore, parents have the right to end their child’s life.
Pretty stupid, eh? I realize that you pretty up the phrasing to hide your equivocation but that is all it is.
Speaking of rights, I have the right to delete the comments of moral skeptics and I think I’ll exercise that right.
Oh, and be sure to come back and wiggle your way out of your obvious truth claim that what Stop the ACLU and I did was bad and that the degradation of political discourse is bad as well. For a second there I thought you were making real, live truth claims that you’d have ample reasons to defend, but then I remembered that in your worldview there is no such thing. You were just rambling with your opinions and would never seek to project those upon someone else, right?
Ah, bless your cotton socks, Neal, for trying so desperately to avoid the question. Four paragraphs of incoherent drivel – so much better than admitting to your own inadequacies as a citizen.
Oh, and you’re confusing moral skepticism for moral relativism. And you’re also confusing moral truth claims with other kinds of truth claim. So much confusion, Neal, so much confusion.
No, you are just playing your girlie-man game of faux skepticism. You aren’t skeptical at all. You’re just too wimpy of a debater to stake some claims and defend them. Grow a pair and then come back.
Nice dodge, Merkur! Only all the evidence you need is there: I quoted from an extremely reliable source. They made a mistake and corrected it. In fact, it is such a reliable because of things like this: When they make mistakes they admit them and correct them! So my confidence in quoting from them is well placed. I then corrected my post. Hey, the system works! The MSM should try it. You should, too.
I see that you are content to just leave your glaring worldview inconsistencies unaddressed, which you compounded with your most recent comment. “Inadequacies as a citizen?!” Heh. Sounds like you have some special standards you expect everyone else to follow.
Once again, Neal, you are confusing moral skepticism with moral relativism, moral truth claims with other types of truth claims, and – at a deeper level – moral philosophy with political philosophy. Since you show no interest in exploring these questions, however, you are unlikely to struggle out towards clarity any time soon, but I am happy to discuss them with you if you wish.
Where I come from, the “MSM” does print and broadcast corrections, and I know for a fact that the major print media in America does the same. Don’t blame me because your media is crappy – you get what you asked for. One of the things you could do to be a better citizen is to campaign for better media – but you’ll probably just keep swallowing channels like Fox whole.
Oh, and stoptheaclu doesn’t just need to print an “update” – not a correction, you notice – it needs to stop peddling bull like this, period. Have you noticed that nobody involved in propagating this has yet provided a link or even a quote that shows that Families USA was deliberately misleading people? The source for this is just some guy’s ranting email. That’s all there is, as far as I can find. Maybe that’s enough for you, but it isn’t for me.
That’s odd, I don’t remember asking for it. I do remember very particular criticisms of it on this blog, though. But don’t let facts get in your way.
I don’t watch Fox, but thanks for visiting from Stereotype Land. Maybe you should do more research before making claims like that. How irresponsible of you! That is just your ranting, right? Why are you deliberately misleading people? Did you just assume I watch Fox because I’m conservative? Maybe that’s enough for you to draw conclusions about people, but it isn’t enough for me. You should stop peddling bull like that, period. Have you noticed that you propogated this myth yet never provided a link or even a source quote that Fox was deliberately misleading people or that I even watch Fox? And so on (basically, re-read your last comment as if it was addressed to you).
Re. truth claims: Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Your artificial parsing of moral truths versus other truths tips your hand at how you work overtime to deny objective morality (though your words betray you at every turn). Yes, morality is a different category, but the definition of truth doesn’t change just because you apply it to different things.
Part of my position is that it cannot
be demonstrated that moral language corresponds to reality in a meaningful way. Feel free to prove otherwise, but in the meantime stop pretending that you’re making an internal critique of my views.
That’s the kind of nonsense that gets people moderated here. You are using language to say that it is reality that moral language doesn’t correspond to reality in a meaningful way. But if language doesn’t respond to reality with respect to morality, why does it correspond to reality elsewhere? Moral relativists / skeptics are trapped in contradictions.
Here is one of my favorite quotes by the author, J. Budziszewski:
Any correlation of the words in bold to postmodernism, moral relativism or moral skepticism is purely deliberate.
“But if language doesn’t respond to reality with respect to morality, why does it correspond to reality elsewhere?”
Because morality is not the same as other things.
Right. Morality is different than other things. We agree.
But truth is that which corresponds to reality. There is no reason to believe that moral things can’t be true or false while other things can be true or false.
My point is that moral language – for example, “X is wrong” – does not correspond to a moral fact (which is what I mean by corresponding to reality, in this case) that X is wrong. I don’t believe that moral facts exist – I’ve never seen any evidence for them – and I am not convinced that even if they did exist we would be able to apprehend them, and I am only weakly certain that if we were able to apprehend them, we would apprehend them accurately. Hence moral skepticism.
We’re going in circles again. I knew that was what you believed, so it isn’t a perception problem on my part. It is the incoherence of those views and your inability to live consistently with them.
Those views are not incoherent, I live within them perfectly consistently, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate otherwise, frankly.
You demonstrated it for me. You try to disguise it, but you think it is wrong to moderate comments, for example. Oh, I know you’ll try to wiggle out of it and say that wasn’t a moral claim, but you and I know better.
“I don’t watch Fox”
That’s why I said “channels like Fox”. Perhaps the problem here is that you don’t read what other people write very carefully?
Bzzzzt. Try again. I don’t watch any news channels. (Rhetorical question: And what other channels are like Fox, anyway??!!)
Re-read my comment. It all still applies. Will you correct yourself like Stop the ACLU and I did? If not, that’s OK. Deep down you’ll know what a hypocrite you were in writing your comment AND in not correcting it.
I freely state that I was wrong and Neal does not watch channels like Fox.
Thanks!
P.S. And I apologize for being harsh in my criticism.
I see the correction on the article was made. I’m, very glad this was not a government controlled phone line, as it would have been terribly inappropriate. Citizens should be able to contact their representative in a manner that does not push any political view.
That said, if you can keep the coverage you have, but some people not lucky enough to have health care can also get it, and you too can participate in that option, how is it not fair to say their will be more choices? I get that you don’t like the extra spending – that fine, but the money has to go somewhere, and it will lower costs for the average person. That’s just math.
Hi Ryan,
The fact that Obama & Co. really want a single payer system has been well documented. They’ve slipped up way too many times for any rational person to believe the lies about increased competition.
Here’s the thing though: “Obama & Co” happens to include quite few people. According to a recent poll, somewhere around 65% of people want a public option. I think it’s fair to say that with those numbers, and with the amount of people with no other option, it’s worth a try.
If the public option is introduced, and it can be shown that it’s not working, the democrats will get killed in the next election, and this initiative will go no further, if it is not completely reversed.
That wasn’t my point. My point was the the whole “choice” thing is a fraud. They don’t want to offer choice, they want to take it away.
And they aren’t stupid enough to fully implement this before 2012.
Is there something I’m missing? I’m in favour of you having choice too. Where have they said that your choice will be taken away? I think a lot of this debate is based on what people assume will happen, and certain people in the media are playing on the fear of the public.
Yes — you appear to have missed this, plus others — http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/12/video-the-public-plan-deception/ .
Watch the whole thing. All 2:58. Then come convince me why I should believe that they are really about “choice” and why they should be trusted.
If this plan drives private health companies out of business, then maybe they were charging too much for coverage. You guys keep telling me that the public option will be much worse, and that the private insurers offer better plans for most people. If that is the case, then their businesses should thrive under this new plan. Unless they were just ripping people off all along.
I expect the system will move to a single payer as well. Why? Because people will choose the government option. What you don’t see here is that people this whole debate is happening because people have made their choice. They chose a new government that campaigned on national health care. That is choice. This will take a long long time. Obama said 15-20 years possibly. That time period will involve several more choices – at the ballot box – to continue in this direction, or go in another.
And you can’t see how the gov’t might have a little unfair competitive advantage there? You complain because gas may be a little more expensive due to oligopolies and you don’t see the risks of the government having such control?
And remember, I demonstrated with their own words that they have no plans for prolonged competition. They are lying when they say the gov’t option will just be one more. They don’t want competition, they want to eliminate it and will use the force of law to get their way.
Oh, they might win, though I’m encouraged with the conservative response. But that doesn’t mean they are telling the truth. Obama & Co. play fast and loose with that. They want to set it up so it will ultimately be single payer whether people like it or not. That is in their own words! Watch the video again.
Yes, people voted for the government. I’m just pointing out how often and how clearly they are being lied to. If they like being lied to that is their problem.
I speak from experience here, as I worked for a company once that was a former government monopoly. When one main organization (the government) is forced to provide services to the people who need it most, it’s actually a terrible DISadvantage. The insurance companies won’t need to worry about people without a lot of money, and they will be able to toss away those with preexisting conditions without the moral problems they have now, not that may of them care about that anyway.
As far as I’m concerned, the insurance companies had the chance to offer fair health care to Americans, and still make a tidy profit. They chose to screw Americans instead, and this is the result.
The public is fairly evenly divided here, and if the insurance companies had offered to cover a few more people, for a little less money, that balance would not have been tipped. They screwed up – they know it – and I think they’re behind a lot of the rhetoric in this debate.
The good thing here is that there are meaningful elections every two years, and those elections are conduits for the public to make change. Nobody can screw up a country completely in two years.
Please don’t challenge the Obama administration like that!
I agree that many insurance companies have shot themselves (and the rest of us) in the foot. I just don’t think that the gov’t monopoly being advanced is the right solution.
I’m glad we agree on that.
Look – I’m in favour of letting the free market determine the price and quality of almost everything that we consumer, regardless of how much we need it. But health care is different, and I wish someone would acknowledge that. The free market requires that BOTH the provider and the consumer have a choice in whether or not to make a purchase, from whom to buy it, and when to buy it. Most of those choices are removed when looking at urgent health care needs. The provider has an unfair upper hand for most consumers – especially for those who need it most.
Forgive me for butting in here – but I think the point merkur is making about abortion is valid.
Putting abortion on the same scale as the murder of a child is not something that many people do. To say that the acts are equally wrong would require equal action. There are abortion clinics in every town, and abortions happen at many of them every day. If there was a clinic in every town that took unwanted orphans of all ages, and shot them, I think there would be people storming the doors to put an end to it at all costs. Anyone who wouldn’t do that would be complicit in my eyes.
I know there are people who do put the acts on the same level, and some that go to great lengths to stop abortion, but not too many.
And just to chip in here – I would condemn somebody who resorted to violence in this case in exactly the same way as I would condemn somebody who resorted to violence against pro-life campaigners. (Actually, thinking about it, I would condemn the latter more harshly precisely because nearly all pro-life campaigners have done nothing to warrant such violence.) However if somebody did resort to violence because they believed murder was being committed, they would at least be consistent.
Ryan, people would get upset a first, but if you kept killing orphans long enough they’d get used to it. Just make it legal and they’d figure it must be moral, eh?
Oh, there would always be a little more revulsion to killing orphans since they are more visible to us. But the underlying humanity of the victims wouldn’t change. It is like the embryos vs. baby in the burning building dilemma that the pro-legalized abortionists like to throw out. They miss the point that our ways of categorizing human beings can lead to moral mistakes. A racist might save one white over five blacks, but that doesn’t mean that each black person didn’t have the same value as the white person.
Agreed. And I think anyone who goes along with abortion on demand is complicit.
“Ryan, people would get upset a first, but if you kept killing orphans long enough they’d get used to it. Just make it legal and they’d figure it must be moral, eh?”
No. Abortion has been made legal, and you don’t think it’s moral. But if you genuinely do believe that abortion is equivalent to killing orphans, then we can conclude that your response to orphans being killed every day in your town would be to blog about it.
Oh, what a cute bit of bad reasoning! Let’s see, first you deliberately ignore all the other things I do for the cause of life. Second, blogging is more than you do for life, even though you concede that abortion kills an innocent human being. You seem to know it is wrong but rationalize that parental “rights” and such trump the right of a human not to be crushed and dismembered without anesthetic.
And bad things happen all over the world. What do you do to prevent genocide? According to your logic, if you aren’t committing acts of violence to prevent it then you are complicit.
You are very, very confused, Merkur. No, wait, I don’t think you are confused at all. Deep down you know what is right, but have the trademark laziness and wimpiness of po-mo’s who like to make moral claims while saying you don’t make moral claims. After all, if you’d be honest in your claims you’d have to be consistent and do something about them and defend them. As it is, you think you just have to defend your “moral skepticism” even though you can’t even do that.
See ya!
But what about food? What could be more important than that? Shouldn’t government monopolize the food distribution as well? Isn’t it too important to leave to businesses?
And what about gas? If prices are too high, they can’t drive to work to get food or health care.
And on and on . . . it is easy to rationalize turning everything over to the gov’t, provided you ignore history and logical consequences.
Those are good points, but I can grow what I need to eat in my garden (and I do so for more than half of my diet) ,and I ride my bike to work. Ironically, both of these things mean I probably on’t need as much health care as the average person. The free market works for food because there are so many sources for it, and it’s cheap. The free market works for gas (or should work) because people do not require gasoline. Our health care needs are not very predictable.
Merkur, I deleted your subsequent comments as promised. I’m glad you conceded that there was nothing immoral about that. If you re-read your comments here you may see that once again you make lots of claims about right and wrong behavior, even as you labor to insist that they aren’t moral claims or that you have a reason for us to care about them.
Feel free to try again on another thread, provided you don’t make moral claims. I simply can’t tolerate the inconsistency of moral relativists / moral skeptics. Sorry to be so harsh but I find dialogue with such passive-aggressiveness to be a big waste of time.
If you want productive dialogue then you should clearly define what you believe constitutes a “moral claim”.
Note that this “should” is not a moral claim – it is simply a restatement of the fact that productive dialogue depends on clarity.
I worry that you think that any statement with a “should” in it constitutes a moral claim. It doesn’t.
I am well aware that not all should statements constitute moral claims (“If you want to avoid cavities, you should brush your teeth.”).
But I have extensive experience with passive-aggressive po-mo’s using lots of “should” statements on things that are clearly moral. When pressed, they predictably fall back to the “just my opinion” nonsense. Life’s too short to deal with disingenuousness like that, hence my disdain for spending much time interacting with moral relativists / skeptics.