Previous Post Scientific Method: 1. Make an observation. - Democrats are unethical. 2. Ask a question. - Is this behavior repeatable? 3. Form a hypothesis, or testable explanation. - They are unethical, and if I post a worrisome anti-government position, they will endorse it. 4. Make a prediction based on the hypothesis. - They will endorse the worrisome anti-government position. 5. Test the prediction. - Post the worrisome anti-government position online and see what they say. 6. Iterate: use the results to make new hypotheses or predictions. - Result: They sided with the worrisome anti-government position. This will continue to be observed in nature. By the way, I thought you preferred to be private. What happened?

You have not proven that endorsing this so-called "worrisome anti-government position" was unethical, though.

Look, Colbert is a comedian. He was simply performing comedy. That's what he does. Of course nothing was going to come of it. It would take a Constitutional amendment to actually abolish the Senate, and the Senate would have to pass it with a 2/3 vote. That's sure not happening anytime soon. So how can this position be called unethical?

Is it simply that any anti-government statement is unethical, simply because it is anti-government? What other positions could be called unethical, then? Would it not be unethical to encourage a group of people to storm the Capitol building and violently attack members of Congress? That would be about as anti-government as it gets.

Oh, wait, it was a Republican ex-President that did that.

Is it anti-government to suggest that access to voting should be restricted from certain demographics in order to give one party an unfair advantage in elections? That would be unethical, then, wouldn't it?

But wait, that's the Republicans' position.

Is it anti-government to suggest that the results of an election should be overturned if it doesn't go your way? That would be unethical, then.

Oh wait, that's the Republicans' position.