President Donald Trump

[GwynnInTheHall]

If she wants to raise awareness, she can put her own kid in the spotlight.
To youre second point: you think its ok to out someone who has AIDS to raise awareness?

If this world were such that people with AIDS or who are LGBTQ were accepted as equals we wouldn't have to "öut"anyone. And yes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Rosie did bring her daughter's condition to light as soon as she was diagnosed.

Don't let your personal distaste for her drag you into the morass of those who react rather than use thoughtful consideration about the situation.

[nots]

If this world were such that people with AIDS or who are LGBTQ were accepted as equals we wouldn't have to "öut"anyone. And yes, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Rosie did bring her daughter's condition to light as soon as she was diagnosed.

Don't let your personal distaste for her drag you into the morass of those who react rather than use thoughtful consideration about the situation.

There is a reason HIPPA laws exist. Sure, they aren't exactly relevant here, but the overarching principle of allowing the person with the disease determine their level of privacy should be sacrosanct.
Don't let your hatred of Trump prevent you from seeing the bigger picture. I know I wouldn't want my kid's issues speculated on in the media. I have to believe you wouldn't want your kid to be treated that way either.

[GwynnInTheHall]

There is a reason HIPPA laws exist. Sure, they aren't exactly relevant here, but the overarching principle of allowing the person with the disease determine their level of privacy should be sacrosanct.
Don't let your hatred of Trump prevent you from seeing the bigger picture. I know I wouldn't want my kid's issues speculated on in the media. I have to believe you wouldn't want your kid to be treated that way either.

I don't hate Trump at all, I don't hate or even dislike anyone in his family. I just think he's not qualified for the office and a complete idiot when it comes to certain things.

I believe we all have responsibility to use whatever we can to advance society for the greater good which supersedes our personal needs/desires.

I would absolutely engage anyone in my family to possibly advance an understanding/treatment/cure, have you forgotten I put my 16 year old daughters transgressions on display here in the Sports Bar so that I might find a way to not only help her, but teach her lessons which would help others down the road?

Keep in mind, I'm a socialist at heart, I believe the greater good is more important than my own. You might not agree and I believe that's where we have a disconnect.

[nots]

It's fine if you want to bring up your families issues, but would you want me bringing up your daughters situation? Especially if you weren't so upfront about what happened and we're hoping to keep it quiet? I suspect you'd want to punch me in the face if I revealed it for the world to see.
On a macro level, I believe an individual all has a right to privacy, especially a 10 year old who has been thrust into the public eye without having a say in the matter. On a micro level, Rosie and Donald have hated each other for close to 30 years. You are a guy who is very adept at digging beneath the surface. Is it really that much of a reach to think her speculation on Baron isn't another shot at Trump? Or do you really think that after 3 decades and countless nasty back and fourths, she decided to take the high road? That would seem unlikely to me.
I guess we can just agree to disagree--I will let you have the last word.

[Sour Masher]

It's fine if you want to bring up your families issues, but would you want me bringing up your daughters situation? Especially if you weren't so upfront about what happened and we're hoping to keep it quiet? I suspect you'd want to punch me in the face if I revealed it for the world to see.
On a macro level, I believe an individual all has a right to privacy, especially a 10 year old who has been thrust into the public eye without having a say in the matter. On a micro level, Rosie and Donald have hated each other for close to 30 years. You are a guy who is very adept at digging beneath the surface. Is it really that much of a reach to think her speculation on Baron isn't another shot at Trump? Or do you really think that after 3 decades and countless nasty back and fourths, she decided to take the high road? That would seem unlikely to me.
I guess we can just agree to disagree--I will let you have the last word.

We may not agree on much, nots, but I agree with you on this. While I disagree that it is certain Rosie was trying to be malicious, and she may in fact be trying to show how Trump and his family might focus on some good, I agree that regardless of her intent, it is not her place to make the choice to "out" a child. We should all be afforded the opportunity to make such choices for ourselves and our families. Living in the public eye makes that hard, and being a fellow that throws all kinds of bricks while living in his own glass house, makes Trump an easy target, but that doesn't make it right for her to speculate publically in such a mannr. Even if she knew for sure, it wouldn't be right, but that it is speculation makes it little different than if someone had phrased the malcious HRC has parkinson speculation as "HRC has parkinson's?, if so, how great that would be for parkinson's awareness?" In both cases, even couched as a positive, it mostly serves to spread rumors, and we have enough of those and half-truths in our public discourse already.

BTW, Rosie herself reognnized she was wrong and apologized for it.

[GwynnInTheHall]

It's fine if you want to bring up your families issues, but would you want me bringing up your daughters situation? Especially if you weren't so upfront about what happened and we're hoping to keep it quiet? I suspect you'd want to punch me in the face if I revealed it for the world to see.
On a macro level, I believe an individual all has a right to privacy, especially a 10 year old who has been thrust into the public eye without having a say in the matter. On a micro level, Rosie and Donald have hated each other for close to 30 years. You are a guy who is very adept at digging beneath the surface. Is it really that much of a reach to think her speculation on Baron isn't another shot at Trump? Or do you really think that after 3 decades and countless nasty back and fourths, she decided to take the high road? That would seem unlikely to me.
I guess we can just agree to disagree--I will let you have the last word.

We shall. I think you might be projecting what you would do onto me and what I would do. I think that in a society, an individual's right to anything is superseded by the greater good.

I can see why you'd think that about O'Donnell. I happen to think she's a genuinely nice person who is compassionate (I don't think that about Trump) and obviously you don;t share my take. It is possible she's using a 10 year old to take a shot at Trump but has she done ANYTHING like that before? Or has she shown she's an advocate for causes on pretty much every level? Now ask yourself, who in this equation od Rosie and Donald has used people/issues to personally denigrate others and I think you have your answer.

O'Donnell was being sincere and Trump twisted it to make her look bad. It's what he does. with pretty much everyone and it's NOT at all what Rosie does, ever especially not with a child so similar to her own.

You're right, I am good at looking at these things and this is what I see.

Then again, I often see things differently than most.

Thanks for the chat I hope going forward we can continue the thoughtful discussion.

[GwynnInTheHall]

We may not agree on much, nots, but I agree with you on this. While I disagree that it is certain Rosie was trying to be malicious, and she may in fact be trying to show how Trump and his family might focus on some good, I agree that regardless of her intent, it is not her place to make the choice to "out" a child. We should all be afforded the opportunity to make such choices for ourselves and our families. Living in the public eye makes that hard, and being a fellow that throws all kinds of bricks while living in his own glass house, makes Trump an easy target, but that doesn't make it right for her to speculate publically in such a mannr. Even if she knew for sure, it wouldn't be right, but that it is speculation makes it little different than if someone had phrased the malcious HRC has parkinson speculation as "HRC has parkinson's?, if so, how great that would be for parkinson's awareness?"

BTW, Rosie herself reognnized she was wrong and apologized for it.

I Understand this, but I don;t agree with it and to add--I'll use Maher's take that we should stop apologizing for doing the right thing, something us on the Left cripple ourselves by doing.

[nots]

We may not agree on much, nots, but I agree with you on this. While I disagree that it is certain Rosie was trying to be malicious, and she may in fact be trying to show how Trump and his family might focus on some good, I agree that regardless of her intent, it is not her place to make the choice to "out" a child. We should all be afforded the opportunity to make such choices for ourselves and our families. Living in the public eye makes that hard, and being a fellow that throws all kinds of bricks while living in his own glass house, makes Trump an easy target, but that doesn't make it right for her to speculate publically in such a mannr. Even if she knew for sure, it wouldn't be right, but that it is speculation makes it little different than if someone had phrased the malcious HRC has parkinson speculation as "HRC has parkinson's?, if so, how great that would be for parkinson's awareness?" In both cases, even couched as a positive, it mostly serves to spread rumors, and we have enough of those and half-truths in our public discourse already.

BTW, Rosie herself reognnized she was wrong and apologized for it.

I didn't know she apologized. Good on her.

[Sour Masher]

I believe we all have responsibility to use whatever we can to advance society for the greater good which supersedes our personal needs/desires.

Keep in mind, I'm a socialist at heart, I believe the greater good is more important than my own. You might not agree and I believe that's where we have a disconnect.

I believe it would be more accurate to say that the arguments you put forth in the above quotes represent your belief in utilitarianism rather than socialism. Socialism is generally agreed to mean the belief that the people should own and regulate the means of production within a society. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that calls for all actions to be judged on how they serve they greatest good for the greatest number of sentient beings. While there is some overlap in the philosophical family tree between the two, your quotes are very much in line with John Bentham's (the founder of utilitarianism) qoute, "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong."

Spock also famously paraphrased this ideology in Wrath of Khan, saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (It amuses me when I've heard folks misattribute this quote to Marx).

In any event, like most ideologies, taken to its extremes, it becomes dangerous and perverse. To live one's life purely by utilitarian beliefs would turn us all into giving trees, as we doled out all of our money, time, and even blood and organs to a greater number of others to whom we perpetually serve, deffering our own rights and pleasures to the greater mathematical benefit of others.

I imagine most would agree that such a society would be dystopian rather than utopian, and that such a philosophy needs to have limits, checks, and balances. Who then, becomes the arbitrators of those checks and balances? And even if one believes there should be none, who then gets to calculate what actions result in the greatest good? In this case, Rosie O'Donnell? Why does she get to make that choice, and not Melania or Barron Trump?

I have nearly as many ideological concerns with pure utilitarianism as I do objectivism, although, if I have to choose between the two, which is how our politics seems to be going, I'll choose the greatest good for the greatest number over "the moral purpose of our lives in our own happiness" (it is so very baffling to me that a political party houses both the Bible and the writings of Ayn Rand as sacred texts, as antithetical as they are).

But I believe we can work towards the greater good, and especially make sure we help those who need the most help--children, the elderly, the infirm, the downtrodden, marginalized, and "othered"--without going so far as to sacrifice ourselves, our own happiness and freedom, and the happiness and freedom of our families in the process. That is why, at its best, it is good ot have at least two ideologies pushing back on each other, although I think with Trump, we see the GOP embracing not the noblest of its core ideologies, but the most grotesque, and I'd warn all those on the right who don't fight this as hard as they can, the pendulum may swing as far away from Trump as it can, toward extremes that make your overstated and simplified characterizations of the left a reality.

[DMT]

(it is so very baffling to me that a political party houses both the Bible and the writings of Ayn Rand as sacred texts, as antithetical as they are).

Because hypocrisy is at its very core.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I believe it would be more accurate to say that the arguments you put forth in the above quotes represent your belief in utilitarianism rather than socialism. Socialism is generally agreed to mean the belief that the people should own and regulate the means of production within a society. Utilitarianism is the ethical theory that calls for all actions to be judged on how they serve they greatest good for the greatest number of sentient beings. While there is some overlap in the philosophical family tree between the two, your quotes are very much in line with John Bentham's (the founder of utilitarianism) qoute, "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong."

Spock also famously paraphrased this ideology in Wrath of Khan, saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." (It amuses me when I've heard folks misattribute this quote to Marx).

In any event, like most ideologies, taken to its extremes, it becomes dangerous and perverse. To live one's life purely by utilitarian beliefs would turn us all into giving trees, as we doled out all of our money, time, and even blood and organs to a greater number of others to whom we perpetually serve, deffering our own rights and pleasures to the greater mathematical benefit of others.

I imagine most would agree that such a society would be dystopian rather than utopian, and that such a philosophy needs to have limits, checks, and balances. Who then, becomes the arbitrators of those checks and balances? And even if one believes there should be none, who then gets to calculate what actions result in the greatest good? In this case, Rosie O'Donnell? Why does she get to make that choice, and not Melania or Barron Trump?

I have nearly as many ideological concerns with pure utilitarianism as I do objectivism, although, if I have to choose between the two, which is how our politics seems to be going, I'll choose the greatest good for the greatest number over "the moral purpose of our lives in our own happiness" (it is so very baffling to me that a political party houses both the Bible and the writings of Ayn Rand as sacred texts, as antithetical as they are).

But I believe we can work towards the greater good, and especially make sure we help those who need the most help--children, the elderly, the infirm, the downtrodden, marginalized, and "othered"--without going so far as to sacrifice ourselves, our own happiness and freedom, and the happiness and freedom of our families in the process. That is why, at its best, it is good ot have at least two ideologies pushing back on each other, although I think with Trump, we see the GOP embracing not the noblest of its core ideologies, but the most grotesque, and I'd warn all those on the right who don't fight this as hard as they can, the pendulum may swing as far away from Trump as it can, toward extremes that make your overstated and simplified characterizations of the left a reality.

I may indeed lean toward that Ideology and I agree that ANY belief system taken to it's extreme is bad. However I don't equate privacy with body parts so to me it's not really comparable. From my perspective, our right to privacy does not eclipse our right to benefit from the lack of it.

Say I have ALS and am famous and someone goes public with that information before I do in hopes that my fame can bring some attention and possibly advance the cause toward understanding and a treatment/cure. Why would I EVER be upset at that? because I didn't give people the Okey Dokie? Pretty damn selfish of me.

I get it, I do, I just don't agree with it. I also don't think Rosie did anything wrong and to hold this up as some kind of reasoning that she shouldn;t lampoon Bannon, to me, is weak at best.

BTW I WAS quoting Spock, jeeze what do you think I am a Savage?

[Sour Masher]

Say I have ALS and am famous and someone goes public with that information before I do in hopes that my fame can bring some attention and possibly advance the cause toward understanding and a treatment/cure. Why would I EVER be upset at that? because I didn't give people the Okey Dokie? Pretty damn selfish of me.

I get it, I do, I just don't agree with it. I also don't think Rosie did anything wrong and to hold this up as some kind of reasoning that she shouldn;t lampoon Bannon, to me, is weak at best.

Would you have felt that way as a 10 year old? I like to see myself as pretty selfless right now, but I don't know how I would have felt about it when I was 10.

To your second point, I agree--if she can do a good parody of Bannon, she shouldn't be hindered by what I consider this error in judgment. Since Trump seems to have soured on Spicer, in part because he saw woman pretend to be him, seeing his arch-enemy, who is a woman, play the devil on his shoulder...well, it would be interesting to see how that played out.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Would you have felt that way as a 10 year old? I like to see myself as pretty selfless right now, but I don't know how I would have felt about it when I was 10.

To your second point, I agree--if she can do a good parody of Bannon, she shouldn't be hindered by what I consider this error in judgment. Since Trump seems to have soured on Spicer, in part because he saw woman pretend to be him, seeing his arch-enemy, who is a woman, play the devil on his shoulder...well, it would be interesting to see how that played out.

I was pretty naive about everything till I was 21+ so i really can't honestly answer that. I can only go by how I feel regarding my own children. I definitely don;t believe privacy overrides abuse, so if I had to, i'd out a kid who was being abused to save em, I know it's different than the issue at hand, but I've never been good at keeping my nose out of others business if I thought being nosey was the right thing to do.


Yeah i'd LOVE to see that played out.

[chancellor]

I didn't know she apologized. Good on her.

LOL. Only after she was threatened with legal action by Melania Trump's lawyers.

[Moonlight J]

Maybe Rosie will mention Baron Trump's autism because, you know, she cares

Honestly have no idea what this is about. I only brought her up because of her latest twitter profile picture which look a lot like his.

As the father of a kid with ASD, I don't find any humor in teasing someone about being autistic. It's a daily challenge as a parent.