'The Lesser of Two Evils in Voting' Persuasive

[lehcarhael]

What is "God's will?" Who is the "Godly" Candidate? the "will of God" is also a relative standard depending on who's God your talking about and what "Holy Book" your using as a reference.

[BenjaminWirtz]

The reason so many do not vote on principal is because they think the person is not electable or will split the vote. However if all the people who are saying that would actually vote on principal they may be surprised. The only reason the compromise candidates win is because people are convinced thay are the only option.

[ayebretwalda]

This fool says Ron Paul is pro-choice citing his own article as proof - the most pro-life candidate in the last two elections. Introduced the Santity of Life Act TWICE with not a lick of support anyone in the GOP or his Tier1 list for that matter.

So that makes this babbling twit an accomplice to important misinformation - which leads to a misinformed vote - which leads to continued murder.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda Thanks for your comment. Ron Paul may be personally pro-life, but his record shows he is officially pro-choice state-by-state. He denies that abortion violates the US Constitution, opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children, and claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children. You can learn more at ProlifeProfiles[dot]com/RonPau­l

[ayebretwalda]

@mrconceeded your parroting your lies on your website word for word. Every claim you make is a lie. In fact he spoke at the NRLC convention just this last week and debunked every lie you just stated. How do you - who are the real pro-choice pleasers - live with yourself?

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda It's not my website, but if they're lies, feel free to point out a factual error and you can win $100 from the makers of the website. I'm not surprised he spoke at the NRLC convention, since they've been bought by the Republican party for years and have no real interest in ending abortion as an issue. Check out: ProlifeProfiles[dot]com/nrlc

[ayebretwalda]

@mrconceeded you had nothing to do with posting the ron paul profile on that site? I find that hard to believe since you work for American Right to Life. $100...lol - this, a an offer from an org that supports abortion by disseminating false information about abortion's most powerful opponents.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda I don't work for ARTL, but I am a member because they are the only national Right to Life organization in the country that doesn't support the killing of some unborn children. I welcome you to back up your claims and prove that any information that is documented with hundreds of footnotes on Prolife Profiles is inaccurate. Otherwise, you're the one slinging false accusations. :)

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda Which of these claims is false?

1. Ron Paul denies that abortion violates the US Constitution.

2. Ron Paul opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children.

3. Ron Paul claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children.

Please provide a specific response to each item.

[ayebretwalda]

You and your twits don't even understand the role of federal goverment - you're a statist. Paul wants to fix things, on the other hand:

YOU want to ban a certain kind of abortion (which has yet to pass after decades). Paul wants to federally mandate that life begins at conception (making abortion murder).

YOU think states rights are subservient to federal authority - which maintains the the status quo by promoting a 30+yr failed resolution.

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda I think states and federal govt are subservient to God's authority, not man's, and therefore every and all levels of govt have the right and obligation to defend innocent life. States don't have the right to decide whether to keep abortion legal (like Ron Paul thinks), but they do have the right to make it illegal, which is why I support state efforts to ban abortion as well as federal ones. NRLC supports the failed strategy you're referring to and doesn't support personhood.

[ayebretwalda]

Respond to this video...For you and your org you would rather have the continued national murder of the unborn, than give individual states the right to overall the national precedent on abortion. You sir, are pro-choice. How are you not?

[mrconceeded]

@ayebretwalda No, that's not true. I think states have the obligation to overrule the federal precedent on legalized abortion. I also think the federal govt has the right to overrule states if they choose to keep abortion legal. No level of govt has the authority to legalize murder.

I tire of your false accusations against me and orgs like ARTL (which you falsely claimed I worked for). If you think Prolife Profiles is lying, prove it. I challenge you to show any of the claims they make false.

[CoCosweetieR]

As far as your actual speaking goes this was a terrific speech!

you nailed the point of a persuasive speech and I was entertained through out the entire speech!

[eoriol1955]

mrconceeded,

I agree with the proposition of your argument but not with the body of it.How can you with all honesty use god as a good example for what is moral ?How can you fail to see that the example you gave about running from overt evil to the covert one also applies to the idea of god versus the devil.God and devil are opposite sides of the same coin.Have you read your bible or are the passages about killing,raping,mass murder,destruction merely a nuisance that you completely overlooked?

[CrashCradLaJunta]

Great speech! I recommend it often. It is very persuasive as most people who hear your evidence agree and are so thankful to hear the truth.

[Andybob94]

I'd point out that under this interp, it's against the Bible to vote for any candidate who has ever supported any kind of sin.

And the Constitution point is dumb. McCain was nominated because the people wanted him to be. Just because your views are in the minority doesn't mean you don't have your Constitutional rights.

I call overlimiting.

[mrconceeded]

@Andybob94 Thanks for commenting! You interpret my argument as: (1) It is immoral to vote for sinners. (2) All men are sinners. (Conc:) It is immoral to vote for any man. However, this is not my argument. You are mistaken in Premise 1. I don't hold that it is immoral to vote for a sinful man, but that there are certain sins that fall into the area of criminal behavior which disqualify a man from holding public office. Examples would be unrepentant rapists, murderers, thieves, & adulterers.

[mrconceeded]

@Andybob94 On the 2nd point, you again misinterpreted my argument and presented a straw man. I didn't say that one's rights are violated because one's preferred candidate didn't make the major party ticket. My argument was that the idea of "voting for the lesser of two evils" isn't found in the Constitution. The Constitution ensures representative government. So my question is: why should you vote for someone who doesn't represent you to defeat someone else that doesn't represent you?

[BenjaminWirtz]

Well said, I have tried to use this basic argument on my friends, not as eloquently as you, but it just frustrates me how much people are willing to compromise. I even did a sort of informal survey asking people if given the choice between Hitler and Stalin who would they vote for? It amazed me how many people tried to justify a vote for one of them. Of course it is a false dichotomy, and the real answer is neither, or a third party.

[whothisebe]

other than that, it was a good argument and i enjoyed it...ty

[whothisebe]

didn't paul say telling a lie is ok to achieve something?

[mrconceeded]

Although I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, the Bible does teach that lying is not wrong or sinful in all circumstances. For example, God rewarded the Hebrew Midwives in Egypt and Rahab in Jericho for lying to the authorities when human lives were in danger. Just as the German hiding Jews in his home would be justified in lying to the NAZI Gestapo, so too were Rahab and the Midwives justified and honored by the Lord in the Book of Hebrews. However, this principle does NOT teach that it

[mrconceeded]

is morally justified to do a little evil so that good might come of it, but rather that lying is not immoral in all circumstances. (Also remember the "lying spirit" that God sent through the camp of the Canaanites!)

There is no comparison between lying to protect innocent life and taking part in the active killing of innocents, with the hope that some others might live. It is never morally justified to intentionally murder an innocent human being in order to potentially win a political victory.

[whothisebe]

Romans 3:7

[mrconceeded]

Did you read the context of that verse? Paul isn't saying that we should be unrighteous to bring out God's righteousness more clearly. In fact, he says "Certainly not!"

I even quoted Romans 3:8 in my speech, where Paul says "Why not say 'Let us do evil that good may result?' Their condemnation is deserved!" Paul is proving my point by saying that we should never do evil that good might come of it (and those who do deserve condemnation).

[a7medsarCA]

my advice will be that even though you truly believe in Jesus, if you want to be successful in life you may don't want to refer to the Holy Bible that much.

i love your work man!

[mrconceeded]

@a7medsarCA Most Christians believe in a sort of "neutrality" between secular and religious thinking, therefore deciding not to use the Bible in their dealings with skeptics. They are not realizing, however, that in doing so they have given up ground to their intellectual opponent, essentially losing the debate before it begins. Instead of going on the offensive (which they should be doing when the understand and apply basic logical reasoning), they are put on the defensive.

[mrconceeded]

It is because I don't believe in any sort of neutrality and because I believe the Bible is the greatest support for logic, reason, and morality that I have that I refer to it often. Why would I willingly disarm myself intellectually before engaging the ideas of our day?

[mrconceeded]

Lastly, the audience I wrote this speech for is a primarily conservative Christian one. I wrote this speech with the awareness of who my primary audience was, realizing that listeners who didn't fit that demograph might not get the same experience out of it. If my audience had been different, I would have probably approached the topic differently so as to connect with them more effectively or chosen a different topic altogether.

[a7medsarCA]

let me tell you something! i'll not be surprised if i see you the president of the USA one day. at that time please don't froget my words.