Frankly, I think that if your ideas don’t collide in the real world, then you’re not taking everything into account. Human behavior is very often about collisions that can’t be reconciled into right and wrong.

“Consistency” means not holding one view when it serves your purpose then switching to its opposite when that serves your purpose. It means your ideas have to mesh with each other, not collide with each other. And yes, it is a goal, but truth is far more important. It’s easy as hell to create a self-consistent set of false ideas.

Consistency is a flaw when it becomes the goal.

You can’t “define” a completely subjective concept. The idea of “define” demands an objective standard at some point. If all the terms involved in a debate are subjective, rational discussion becomes impossible and pointless. Like trying to establish whether vanilla tastes better than chocolate. Of course, ripping politics and philosophy out of the realm of rational discussion is probably the goal in the first place.

There’s a reason the Left viciously attacks anyone who talks about politics in terms of fundamental ideas and philosophy. They know damn well what their own fundamental philosophy is.

“Anyway, since your philosophical definition of “evil” seems to be “things ER doesn’t like,” I’m not sure what we can reference here.”

YOU??

And by the way, that’s a perfectly legitimate definition of evil. In fact, it is the only valid one. Like all philosophical points, it is purely subjective. Look it up.

Any airheads who swallowed this crap like a carp gulping down a dough ball should not be lecturing anyone else on rhetoric and buzz-words in politics. Anybody who’s still swallowing it after he’s gone back on almost everything he said during his campaign deserves what they get.

Cripes, at least Palin’s rhetoric connects to solid concepts here and there.

Anyway, since your philosophical definition of “evil” seems to be “things ER doesn’t like,” I’m not sure what we can reference here.