• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Blue states smart! Red states dumb!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ripclawe

Banned
You go to college to get a better education which leads to a better job, better pay.

But I firmly believe that, the more you learn about the world the more you learn about how this world works... the more the liberal side will appeal to you. On average. And the studies and numbers seem to agree with that idea as well.

The more I have learned about the world, the more I have learned about what makes different political systems work and the effects on a society, the more conservative I have become.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
That's fair enough Rip. At least you try to critically examine political positions.

And of course, I would have to qualify that statement, with "on average"; but then that's frightfully boring, having to do that every time.
 

AfroLuffy

Member
So you're not voting? I used to think you were smart.

Perhaps, there is a cynicism that regardless of which party is elected, it hardly solves the problems of our current political system, so that no matter who is elected to office--democrat or republican--it isn't likely to affect change.

Edit: nevermind, I see i was a little slow in my response. ;/
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Well, in a long term view, voting liberal will affect long term change. :p Better education, less draconian control over the high courts; which in turn leads to a better facilitation of change, should it ever be seen as needed.
 

Xenon

Member
This is just a feeble attempt to discredit their opposition. I could listen to Rush and he would pull up statistics to counter this.

This has pretty abundant in these forums lately.

IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH YOUR DUMB
WHAT KIND OF MORON SUPPORTS BUSH

It show the emotional state people are in when it comes to Bush vs Kerry and only hurts one's arguements, to me at least.

Come on children, play nice[/chef voice]
 
Xenon said:
This has pretty abundant in these forums lately.

IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH YOUR DUMB
WHAT KIND OF MORON SUPPORTS BUSH

At least not on this board. It's pretty rare to see anyone post in all caps. If they are, they are probably joking.
 

way more

Member
Zaptruder said:
Well, in a long term view, voting liberal will affect long term change. :p Better education, less draconian control over the high courts; which in turn leads to a better facilitation of change, should it ever be seen as needed.

Correct. In the USA you only have two choices, red or blue, donkey or elephant. We only have two chances not by chance, it's based upon how our votes are tabulated. For me the world seems to be in slightly better hands with a dem in power. So just freaking choose one or the other. Chirst, I'd hate to have to order a pizza with you undecided.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Xenon said:
This is just a feeble attempt to discredit their opposition. I could listen to Rush and he would pull up statistics to counter this.

This has pretty abundant in these forums lately.

IF YOU SUPPORT BUSH YOUR DUMB
WHAT KIND OF MORON SUPPORTS BUSH

It show the emotional state people are in when it comes to Bush vs Kerry and only hurts one's arguements, to me at least.

Come on children, play nice[/chef voice]

An ad-hominen attack is one thing, but the reasoning that goes into this 'attack' is that: More education = more consideration of issue = more consideration of issue = someone that knows better what they're talking about and someone that is more likely to choose the 'correct choice'.

Of course all those steps are quite a large generalization and you'll be able to counter it with specifics all day long, but that's the general rule of thumb.

It's why character attacks work so well, even in terms of (or especially in terms of) politics, as valid assessments of a persons character and ability are one of the few things that we can validly base our expectations of.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Azih said:
I think you're mixing social long term thinking and moral long term thinking Loki because really, you give government too much credit in saying Government DOESN'T affect socital mores NEARLY as much as societal mores affect it. That is to say, it wasn't Liberal governments 40 years ago that turned everybody into pot smoking sluts so much as society was moving in that direction anyway and liberals just adapted to that base.

What governments DO control is taxation and social spending, and since we are talking about governments then Liberals *do* tend to be long term thinkers

Cutting funds for public education, public health, and public transit is good short term policy (tax cut!), but bad long term policy (dirtier environment, less healthy, less educated underclass which can't move ahead into prosperous tax paying middleclass and not have to turn to crime as some in the underclass have to).

The seperation of church and state mandates that the state doesn't have much say in morality (since that is the business of the church). So I really don't think you can bring moral long term thinking vs moral short term thinking into play in a discussion of governments.

Of course we might be talking at cross-purposes, I'm talking politics and policies, not lifestyles.

I'm not going to discuss this too deeply, because it would take too long. Suffice it to say that although I agree with you that social mores tend to shape society more than politicians do, a politician should be held to a higher standard (ethically and in terms of the prudence of their judgments) than a civilian is. In aiding such a cultural shift as you mention by helping to undermine the traditional social restrictions on such actions and thought via legislation, court rulings etc., liberals were not thinking ahead imo. A person who was thinking long-term wouldn't have opposed the denial of welfare benefits to crackheads who use it for their habit while their children starve; they would have realized that if you just keep giving more AFDC to people having their third and fourth child while on welfare, you only provide an incentive (or at least provide no disincentive) for them to keep popping out kids. A prudent, far-sighted person would have realized that teaching kids that all values are relative, and that pleasure is the highest goal (which is shown through their support of a licentious and hedonistic culture), would lead to kids in second grade giving each other blowjobs, or high-schoolers raping girls in the stairwells. Or that promotion of an insanely materialistic culture (blame for this is shared equally among dems and reps imo) would lead to kids killing other kids for their sneakers. Obviously, when assessing the reasons for these occurrences, there are other contributory forces that fall just as heavily on the Republican side (most prominently, the need for two-income families, leaving children to be raised by TV and hooligans in their community; this was created by the stagnation of wages caused by corporate greed, furthered by Republicans), but to say that liberals had no hand in it? Come now. A wise person tries to restrain and mitigate a populace's baser instincts and proclivities, not exacerbate them by the enactment of silly laws and judicially-mandated moral dictates. Liberals were the ones clamoring for these things, not conservatives. I really can't fathom how you can legitimately deny that radicalism has been part and parcel of the liberal agenda-- indeed, has been at the forefront of liberal ideology-- for decades now. It is what pushes the philosophy forward. For example, many things considered "centrist" right now within the liberal/Democratic community would have been considered extremely radical/"progressive" 30 years ago. Note to liberals: labelling something as "progressive" doesn't mean that it's progress.


Do you take issue with that? Then let me state it more clearly, perhaps, this way:


I believe that if you did everything our current "liberals" supposedly want-- higher minimum wage, better job training, improving educational opportunities, particularly in the inner cities, expanding social programs etc.-- society's ills would shrink considerably...but they would not disappear. And that is because the other factors I allude to-- which are things that liberals will never address-- are also contributing to this society's decline.


I dunno, maybe you think that if an entirely "liberal" agenda was adopted (meaning that all of the democratic party's policies were enacted), that society would become some utopia. I disagree. Would it be much better? Sure-- and that's why I agree with many "liberal" ideas and ideals. Would it be as good as it could be? No, because despite the bashing that "conservatism" receives on this board, there is a lot to be said for it as a philosophy (this is distinct from the policy initiatives that modern conservatives would enact, though some of their stances still coincide with traditional conservative philosophy).


As far as promoting certain moralities is concerned, I entirely disagree that moral instruction is solely the realm of the church and the family. Society, and, yes, government, has an obligation to its constituents to set certain minimum moral standards which serve to uphold the fabric of the society. These moral standards should be similar to the standards which helped to hold the society together previously-- namely, respect for others, an eschewal of materialism and licentiousness, temperance, and charity (i.e., good deeds). There is absolutely nothing "religious" about any of these values (Aristotle quite rightly recognized their excellency and encouraged their dissemination 500 years before Christ), and in fact, you'll find that every successful, sane society espouses them to one degree or another. Our culture-- and yes, our government-- have failed spectacularly in that regard. Why can't this basic social morality be taught in schools? Or are you saying that all morality is religious in nature? I know you're not saying that; many atheists are respectable, decent people. But the fact is that the values I'm suggesting be instilled are common to ALL decent and prudent people, religious or otherwise. And if you're going to allow kids to hear songs featuring the worst sort of violence and misogyny, or see movies featuring gratuitous sex and violence, all the while being raised by these mediums (and by the streets) since both parents work or it's a single-parent family, you sure as shit better have a mechanism in place to transmit these universally beneficial values to children. Continually chanting "the parents should raise the kids" (which I agree with) does nobody any good, because it'll never happen. Are liberals going to change society so that one income is sufficient to get by again, and the other parent can raise little Johnny? Highly doubtful. So there have to be these other contingencies in place imo, in order that society not become dissolute and reprobate, which, quite frankly, far too many of us have become-- it's not a majority of the populace, but it's certainly enough to cause a hell of a lot of trouble....and that's what we have in the US: Trouble.



I'm not going to belabor these points, however. You're free to believe what you will. Anybody who takes this as an endorsement of conservatives/Republicans, however, is sorely mistaken. If I wanted to, I could write just as long a post detailing the ills that they have created in society through their action and inaction over the years, but that wasn't the comment that was made (referring to Zaptruder's original comment about liberals being more far-sighted), so I didn't speak to it. For the record, let it be known that I detest the typical conservative mindset that can't understand that, yes, sometimes people fall on hard times and need a hand up; the seeming inhumanity that dictates that corporate profits should be allowed to come at the expense of our nation's families (see: downsizing/outsourcing and exploitation of labor via the farcical "minimum wage"), resulting in ills such as previously noted; the misguided belief that religion has a place in government (and I'm religious); their general reliance on ad hominem and attack politics as opposed to reasoned debate; their usance of national tragedy (9/11) and religious rhetoric for the sake of political expediency; their abiding belief in the entirely untenable notion of laissez-faire capitalism and the unfettered accumulation of wealth; their historical and present aversion to civil/equal rights; their seemingly itchy trigger-fingers with the use of our military power; their lack of understanding that such a society as we have now vis-a-vis these other issues I mentioned is simply not sustainable in the long term (see, this is an instance of short-term thinking on the part of conservatives).


There is much more I can say, but I think that should suffice. Just please don't try to "convince me" that the liberal ideology (as espoused by politicians) has never done any sort of damage to this country, because it has, just as the conservative ideology has (and as both do currently in various spheres). If I wanted to sit here and write a book for you about why I believe these things, it would be made clear-- because even this lengthy post glosses over many things, and doesn't allow me to get into the sort of detail I'd like to in terms of discussing issues such as how society should be constituted and the proper relationship between the electorate and their leaders, in terms of their mutual obligations and responsibilities to one another; this would allow you to see why I feel that those obligations have been neglected on all sides of the political spectrum.


mac said:
Actually, I never thought you were smart.

And...who are you again?
 

Cimarron

Member
^^^

I'm sorry this is bullshit. I'm from te old school of 'Shut the fuck up!'. I get so frustrated when people get stuck between a hard decision where neither is friggin ideal so they decide to stuck there head in a whole and pretend the problem won't get better. There is always the lesser of two evils. Mauled by a golden retriever or mauled by a pit bull? I'd rather not be mauled by either one but if I was put in a situation where someone else was going to make the choice for me if I didn't choose (IE. any democracy) you damn well be sure i would choose the golden retriever. Yes the system is broken but you have no choice but to make the decision that is the best one. Not the perfect one. If you don't participate when you have the power to do so STFU and take it up the arse like a good boy with out a whimper because guess what? You had the choice to make it better even if it was only slightly so.

Edit:Whoops not you Loki! this was for a post above yours. Even though I must say that if you do not vote in this upcoming election and you have the power to do so i'm so very dissapointed in you. And to think I was going to start a Loki off topic fan club. :p
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Tamanon said:
To be fair, since voting is a voluntary process, it's perfectly fine to choose neither.

But not so fine if you expect change for the better while not putting in a vote.

One side will do better than the other, after all things have been taken into account and carefully considered. You cast a vote for which side you think will do better and hope that with enough 'correct' votes that the positive change will come sooner than later.

OTOH, both candidates could both be dunces and both do overall long term damage... but even in this case, it would be better to vote in order to reduce that damage and increase the chance of positive change in the long term amortized case.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
I like how alot of Loki's post tends to end up with him apologizing for the short length of the post and how he could better explain if he were to create a longer post.
 

Azih

Member
but to say that liberals had no hand in it?
Never said that, I was really careful in what I said, and that was nowhere in it.

This interests me
society's ills would shrink considerably...but they would not disappear

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY is expecting a utopia, nobody is expecting societies' ills to disappear as that is impossible. What we all want and all we can expect is for them to, as you said, shrink considerably. Now in a situation where you DO think that the generic liberal agenda would reduce societies' ills and you're STILL refusing to vote in an election... well. I think the other posters comment on how you just don't have an ideal party to vote for (fiscally progressive[mostly], socially conservative) is accurate. But y'see, nothing's ideal.

Mainly what we have is a disagreement on the function of government here. The American consititution was built on the seperation of church and state, you don't agree so much. So because of that even though you like most of the Dem's social spending ideas (y'know what their policies would look like if they were in government), you don't like the fact that they're not providing a blueprint for the morality of the nation (which is not their function according to the constitution).
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Cimarron said:
^^^

I'm sorry this is bullshit. I'm from te old school of 'Shut the fuck up!'. I get so frustrated when people get stuck between a hard decision where neither is friggin ideal so they decide to stuck there head in a whole and pretend the problem won't get better. There is always the lesser of two evils. Mauled by a golden retriever or mauled by a pit bull? I'd rather not be mauled by either one but if I was put in a situation where someone else was going to make the choice for me if I didn't choose (IE. any democracy) you damn well be sure i would choose the golden retriever. Yes the system is broken but you have no choice but to make the decision that is the best one. Not the perfect one. If you don't participate when you have the power to do so STFU and take it up the arse like a good boy with out a whimper because guess what? You had the choice to make it better even if it was only slightly so.

You're a moron. That's what you get for telling me to "stfu", to "take it up the ass", and that my opinion is "bullshit".

I don't believe in choosing "the lesser of two evils" in ANY sphere, much less one of such great importance as the election of our president. The system shouldn't be evil (i.e., corrupt) in the first place-- that's my point. Let it be known that if you're suggesting compulsory voting, I'd rather take a bullet to the head (yes, I'm serious), than vote for the assclowns who the parties offer to us each election. Sorry if you can't square that with your simplistic mentality.


You say that I'm "stuck between a hard decision"-- this is entirely inaccurate. What am I, a dope? I can't make up my mind? Yeah, the millions of people who cast that vote are ALL smarter than me and better able to "make a decision". :lol Yeah, if God came down and compelled me to vote, I'd likely vote Kerry (largely because I can't countenance an idiot ruling the multitudes, but for some policy reasons as well). But He isn't coming down, and I don't have to lend the system my tacit approval, as if everything's all well and good. Will anybody ever know that I abstained out of principle as opposed to apathy? Not likely-- but I really couldn't give a shit, either. I'm not here to please other people, I'm here to do what I believe is correct; it's not your place to tell me what is correct. Understand?


Respect my right to abstain the same way I respect your right to be a belligerent idiot.
 

Makura

Member
DavidDayton said:
College degrees = "smartness".

I somehow doubt that is completely true, especially considering that so many degrees being spit out depend less on critical thinking and more on "trade school" type instruction. Degrees don't indicate "intelligence" by themselves.

Well, that's the end of this thread.
 

Dilbert

Member
I did a quick search (work calls, after all) to see if I could find any data correlating income and political affiliation, and came up empty. The only thing I found which might be relevant was this article from the Washington Post discussing changes observed in the 2000 elections. In short: Although the percentage of people in higher-income brackets used to be significantly tilted in favor of the Republicans, the gap has almost completely closed.

The interesting observation (towards the end of the article) is that the best predictor of voting affiliation seems to be church attendance. The more religious you are, the more likely it is that you vote Republican. There is some discussion about how there is a growing split between poor white voters (who are increasingly going Republican) and poor non-white voters (remaining in the Democrat camp). Insert your own comment here about the opiate of the masses.

Although I'm not surprised that religion ends up being the biggest predictor, it quite frankly frightens the living hell out of me.
 

Dilbert

Member
DavidDayton said:
College degrees = "smartness".

I somehow doubt that is completely true, especially considering that so many degrees being spit out depend less on critical thinking and more on "trade school" type instruction. Degrees don't indicate "intelligence" by themselves.
It's true that the presence or absence of a degree in a particular case doesn't prove anything. But are you actually suggesting that as a group, college degree holders are NOT smarter than average? That seems quite strange to me.
 

Cimarron

Member
:lol

Your response is both amusing and illogical. Why complain about something if you CHOSE to do nothing about about it? Now if you have actually concocted a way to change some of the things you have complained about that is more effective than voting then my apologies and good for you. But if it just includes belly aching and no action.....
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Zaptruder said:
I like how alot of Loki's post tends to end up with him apologizing for the short length of the post and how he could better explain if he were to create a longer post.

But that's absolutely true, so I don't get why you're making such a sarcastic remark. Anybody who thinks that I can't justify each and every one of my views is kidding themselves, if you're insinuating that I can't. But I don't get paid to be on this forum, you know...


Azih:

The American consititution was built on the seperation of church and state, you don't agree so much. So because of that even though you like most of the Dem's social spending ideas (y'know what their policies would look like if they were in government), you don't like the fact that they're not providing a blueprint for the morality of the nation (which is not their function according to the constitution).

You're missing the point a bit, I believe. I certainly believe in the separation of church and state, and have stated as much many times on the forum. What I disagree with is the notion that there can be no moral instruction provided by the government. You seem to think that I'm trying to "slip religion in" somehow just because I'm a proponent of so-called "traditional morality", which is not the case. Certain values, such as the ones I listed previously, are not inherently religious in nature, and, in fact, are the backbone of any successful society (if that society is to be sustainable in the long term). Such virtues were espoused by Aristotle over 2000 years ago-- was he religious? No, but he realized that certain values are beneficial to both the individual and society, and, after much consideration, I happen to agree with him. In fact, by kinda implicitly suggesting (I'm saying this "weakly", because I don't want to misrepresent your stance) that an appeal to morality must of necessity be religious in nature, you're essentially saying the same thing that staunch proponents of organized religion have always (mistakenly) said: that without religion, no morality is possible. Now, again, I'm not REALLY saying that you're implying this, but for you to gather from my previous posts that I'm somehow against the separation of church and state, well, the only way that you could correctly say that is if you feel that all moral values are religious in nature, or need to be buttressed by religious dogma in order to prove effective. Aristotle didn't believe that to be the case; I use him as an example because he was not religious, yet he recognized that certain values promote social well-being. Period. That's my entire point-- I'm not looking for a "back door" for religious encroachment on government affairs at all. All I'm saying is that certain values and standards promote the health of a society, and that this has always, and will always be the case. These values have tangible, practical results and benefits for a society, and so they should be championed by any sane society imo.


Just think, for a moment of what a simple return to temperance (to take one such value) would do for our society: it would affect everything from personal financial woes incurred due to excessive spending (though some is of necessity, much is not), to teen/single-parent pregnancies and its attendant ills, to drug use and its accompanying evils, to excessive corporate greed-- you name it, and a return to this one value would have a marked effect if people were exposed to it from a young age and society put its stamp on such a value. Instead, we live in likely the most intemperate culture in history (or on the short list of the top two or three). The results of the disavowal of these simple, sane moral values are all around us; I don't see why you equate my championing of such values to "pushing religion" on people. I'm not that way at all-- you'll never see me enter a thread shouting that "Christ is the way, the truth, and the light", despite the fact that I wholeheartedly believe that to be the case. I've done a lot of reading, and a lot of thinking in my life, and am fully capable of supporting any stance I take with reasoned argument as opposed to faith-based arguments (and advocating faith-based morality-- which I am not doing-- would be an instance of this).


Hope this makes things a bit clearer. :)
 
Jebus, I can't believe people are so uptight around here. I don't think the original poster really was being serious when making this thread.

And if he was, well you can't pin one side as being smarter, better, faster, more productive. ;)

Each side will always have an equal amount of intellectuals, loonies (though I must say the left-leaning ones seem to have a great sense of humor), uninformed, etc. The more you look at things, the more they seem the same.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
-jinx- said:
I did a quick search (work calls, after all) to see if I could find any data correlating income and political affiliation, and came up empty. The only thing I found which might be relevant was this article from the Washington Post discussing changes observed in the 2000 elections. In short: Although the percentage of people in higher-income brackets used to be significantly tilted in favor of the Republicans, the gap has almost completely closed.

I think the best way to take "smart = rich = democrat" would be to remove the top 1% of the population. Although, I'd still like to think some of my point remains; poor voters on the republican side voting against their own socio-economic interests.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Sal Paradise Jr said:
Each side will always have an equal amount of intellectuals, loonies (though I must say the left-leaning ones seem to have a great sense of humor), uninformed, etc. The more you look at things, the more they seem the same.

Actually the whole thing we're trying to debate is that each side does NOT have an equal amount of intellectuals and loonies... and that my point (and the point of the article) is that you'll find more intellectuals among the liberal side than the republican side.

Unfortunately things are taken as: Liberals devoid of stupid people, Republicans devoid of smart people. If that's the way you want to engage the argument, then fine by me :p just don't expect any reasonable response from me.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
Loki said:
But that's absolutely true, so I don't get why you're making such a sarcastic remark. Anybody who thinks that I can't justify each and every one of my views is kidding themselves, if you're insinuating that I can't. But I don't get paid to be on this forum, you know...

I just find the irony amusing; that I and many other people tend to skim through your posts which yammer on about how the post would be clearer if it were longer... when removing those parts would probably make the posts shorter and clearer (or at least less worthy of skimming).
 

FightyF

Banned
Numerous threads whose sole purposes are to insult the intelligence of conservatives in general go unchecked here all the time.

The Republican party doesn't represent Conservatives, but Neocons.

I can say without a doubt that most Neocons are dumb. Most, if not all Neocons, have a twisted way of viewing society.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
-jinx- said:
The interesting observation (towards the end of the article) is that the best predictor of voting affiliation seems to be church attendance. The more religious you are, the more likely it is that you vote Republican. There is some discussion about how there is a growing split between poor white voters (who are increasingly going Republican) and poor non-white voters (remaining in the Democrat camp). Insert your own comment here about the opiate of the masses.

I spoke about that distinction (between the voting patterns of poor whites and poor non-whites) in my post on the previous page; it would seem that religion is something of an "overarching" concern that supersedes mere self-interest (or at least that's how religious "obligations", such as the need to vote Republican :p, are often framed from the pulpit/podium), which causes those poor whites to vote Republican despite their policies not doing a damned thing to help them personally. It's a shame, in that sense.


Zaptruder said:
I just find the irony amusing; that I and many other people tend to skim through your posts which yammer on about how the post would be clearer if it were longer... when removing those parts would probably make the posts shorter and clearer (or at least less worthy of skimming).

Issues aren't always clear-cut, or expressible through simple, concise statements.


Sorry that you see my posts as "yammering", or "unworthy of being read fully" (instead of skimmed). Your loss. I don't skim over anybody's posts-- if I feel that they are worthy of being read (based on whose post it is), then I read them. People deserve that consideration; apparently, I do not.
 

AfroLuffy

Member
Loki, are you familiar with www.philosophyforums.com? I am not suggesting that you leave, as I enjoy your posts very much. However, I think you may find kindred spirits there, capable of engaging you/your arguments at a higher level, which is not to imply that certain members of this board are incapable--simply, your discussions may yield greater results elsewhere. :D
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Oh, and Azih, when I spoke of a "utopia", I meant in the relative sense-- obviously, all of society's ills won't disappear just because you fully adopt a liberal (or conservative) agenda. I meant that you will not achieve the realizable level of social soundness by means of one or the other. Things have never been, nor will they ever be, perfect-- I'm not foolish enough to suggest otherwise. I do, however, feel that there is an ideal society that can be achieved (which would not be absolutely ideal, as noted, but would be the best we could reasonably be expected to do), and I measure things against that standard-- a standard which I honestly feel we are fully capable of achieving, not some pie-in-the-sky utopian ideal. Hope this clarifies things. :)
 

Ristamar

Member
-jinx- said:
Although I'm not surprised that religion ends up being the biggest predictor, it quite frankly frightens the living hell out of me.

I've heard that from quite a few analysts, and I also find it a little disconcerting.

For the record, I was raised Catholic, I haven't regularly attended mass since the latter half of high school, and I'm registered independent.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
AfroLuffy said:
Loki, are you familiar with www.philosophyforums.com? I am not suggesting that you leave, as I enjoy your posts very much. However, I think you may find kindred spirits there, capable of engaging you/your arguments at a higher level, which is not to imply that certain members of this board are incapable--simply, your discussions may yield greater results elsewhere. :D

Well I'm glad somebody enjoys them, at least. :p Eh, I dunno-- I really enjoy this board, and consider many posters (on both sides of the political/philosophical fence) to be "friends", so I wouldn't leave just because some people take issue with the points I raise or the manner in which I raise them (which is admittedly verbose). There are some quite brilliant/intelligent posters here, so you're right-- they're not incapable; in fact, I happen(ed) to consider Zaptruder to be among that group (his posts, like mine, tend to be on the longish side, though I've never merely "skimmed" them), but apparently I am not allowed to express my thoughts in the manner I see fit while simultaneously expecting them to be given the same consideration that I give others' posts. Which is odd, if you ask me, considering the amount of time that people spend here (it's not like they're in a rush)-- why can't they just pretend that they're reading 3 or 4 posts when they read mine? ;) :p


I just thought that that was a rude comment to make; apparently some people believe that I'm long-winded either for its own sake or because I like to hear myself talk (false-- this is the first political topic I've posted in at length in some months). Both could not be further from the truth. Would it have been better if I had just come in and responded to Zaptruder by saying, "no, liberals are short-sighted and conservatives aren't", and left it at that? No, that would be silly, because my thoughts on these matters can't be distilled down to one sentence, and in any event would give the wrong impression (to my mind, it would be more wrong of me to just make some comment like that and leave it dangling there, unsupported-- not less; it would make me a troll). But at least my posts would have been read fully that way, rather than skimmed. ;) But anyway, these things are unrelated to the topic at hand.


And yes, I've visited those forums before (never posted, though)-- there's some nice discussion to be had there. Thanks for the heads-up anyway, though. :)
 

maharg

idspispopd
I didn't really take zap's comment as being that insulting. It is a bit funny that you appologize for being short when, by this forum's standards, your posts are exceptionally long. Not in a bad way, just in a "hey look at that, isn't it funny," kinda way.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
maharg said:
I didn't really take zap's comment as being that insulting. It is a bit funny that you appologize for being short when, by this forum's standards, your posts are exceptionally long. Not in a bad way, just in a "hey look at that, isn't it funny," kinda way.

No, I mean, I can see the humor in me "apologizing" for the brevity of my responses given their length (I wasn't really "apologizing" so much as stating that I could explain things more clearly if I had more time; he implied that I was using that as something of an "excuse" by his tone)-- but he then went on to imply that their length is a negative (note the usage of language: "yammering on", "less worthy of skimming" etc., as if I do this for my own amusement). Yeah, it's not like he called me a dick or anything, but I don't care much for what he's implying (if not outright stating); I've never treated anyone else here that way, regardless of the length of their posts (though I understand that mine tend to be much longer than most, for reasons already given).


I just take exception to what he's saying. I dislike ambiguity, and will not allow my words to be misconstrued, so I try to be as precise and thorough as possible. Precision doesn't always equal concision, however. I care much more about "not being misunderstood" than I do about being seen as "someone who's prolix"-- that's just a personal preference of mine. If I was more brief about things initially, I'd likely have to spend the same amount of time defending myself and elaborating upon my initial comments as I would have had I just wrote a long post to begin with. I'm sure you can understand...:)
 
College degrees = "smartness".

I somehow doubt that is completely true, especially considering that so many degrees being spit out depend less on critical thinking and more on "trade school" type instruction. Degrees don't indicate "intelligence" by themselves.

I havent read any of the other responses, but that is not the point.

Even if there isnt a 1 to 1 connection between higher education and intelligence, there clearly is a strong correlation.

note: im not saying that the results found in this 'study' are accurate, just that what you said is wrong.
also: from where i come from, degree specifically refers to 'universities', as opposed to colleges which offer diplomas.
 

way more

Member
Loki, You seem to really have it in for the 60's.
Did liberals 40 years ago really look ahead to see where pushing a culture of infinite permissiveness, cultural/moral relativism and non-judgmentalism would lead us?
an immoral culture of hedonism and materialism has taken root for various reasons; note: I'm not passing judgment-- the reasons these trends have occurred are numerous, and blame lies on all sides
In aiding such a cultural shift as you mention by helping to undermine the traditional social restrictions on such actions and thought via legislation, court rulings etc., liberals were not thinking ahead imo
A prudent, far-sighted person would have realized that teaching kids that all values are relative, and that pleasure is the highest goal (which is shown through their support of a licentious and hedonistic culture), would lead to kids in second grade giving each other blowjobs

I wouldn't worry, those damn baby boomers will be gone within a couple of decades.

Our culture-- and yes, our government-- have failed spectacularly in that regard. Why can't this basic social morality be taught in schools
Just think, for a moment of what a simple return to temperance (to take one such value)

You've mentioned this idea that morals should be thought in the class room and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. You've only caught flak because some people have misinterpreted this as religion in schooling. Yes we want our children to learn good morals and I think we're doing a damn fine job. Teen pregnancies and crime have been falling for the last decade maybe it's because of sex ed and the importance community service has in schools nowadays.

I have to ask, what sort of morals should we teach?

My apologies if I took anything out of context.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
mac said:
Loki, You seem to really have it in for the 60's.





I wouldn't worry, those damn baby boomers will be gone within a couple of decades.




You've mentioned this idea that morals should be thought in the class room and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. You've only caught flak because some people have misinterpreted this as religion in schooling. Yes we want our children to learn good morals and I think we're doing a damn fine job. Teen pregnancies and crime have been falling for the last decade maybe it's because of sex ed and the importance community service has in schools nowadays.

I have to ask, what sort of morals should we teach?

My apologies if I took anything out of context.

Because I'm "not smart", I'm not really going to respond substantially to your post, because certainly my doltish musings would fail to satisfy your obviously sophisticated intellectual cravings. I will say that, yes, some progress is being made in certain spheres-- I do not deny that. As for the question about "what sort of morals should we teach?", may I ask if you even read my post? I specifically listed several values (which constitute a sound ethical core, imo) that should be transmitted, somehow, to our youth (and all of society, ideally). This could be done through education as well as through cultural mediums (see: entertainment, literature etc.), but it's currently not being done, with a few exceptions.


And don't apologize for "taking things out of context"-- apologize for insulting me (your unprovoked "actually, I never thought you were smart" comment). You're allowed to misunderstand things; you're not allowed to outright insult people for no reason, however.

Yes we want our children to learn good morals and I think we're doing a damn fine job

More power to you, then-- I happen to vehemently disagree. I'm speaking not only of what is taught in school (which is in itself lacking), but also those values that are inculcated in our collective consciousness by way of our culture.


McLesterolBeast said:
Im with loki. These hedonists are way out of line. Some of them don't even brush three times a day.

:D ;)
 

way more

Member
Loki said:
Because I'm "not smart", I'm not really going to respond substantially to your post, because certainly my doltish musings would fail to satisfy your obviously sophisticated intellectual cravings. I will say that, yes, some progress is being made in certain spheres-- I do not deny that. As for the question about "what sort of morals should we teach?", may I ask if you even read my post? I specifically listed several values (which constitute a sound ethical core, imo) that should be transmitted, somehow, to our youth (and all of society, ideally). This could be done through education as well as through cultural mediums (see: entertainment, literature etc.), but it's currently not being done, with a few exceptions.


And don't apologize for "taking things out of context"-- apologize for insulting me (your unprovoked "actually, I never thought you were smart" comment). You're allowed to misunderstand things; you're not allowed to outright insult people for no reason, however.



More power to you, then-- I happen to vehemently disagree. I'm speaking not only of what is taught in school (which is in itself lacking), but also those values that are inculcated in our collective consciousness by way of our culture.




:D ;)

A) Sorry I said you were not smart, it was supposed to be more a dry wit thing then a direct atttack
B) I'm re-reading your posts, again, and all I can find concerning the values you would teach are the ones I quoted you, expect the opposite of course.
C) Once again, saying you're not smart was supposed to follow my original musing that I though you were smart. Just an off-hand remark that if delivered quilckly, well timed, and with a bit of grace would've been funny. I must've failed.
D) On the topic of teaching morals in school I believe there can be no overt method to teach children. If we teach them to repect all races and sexual orientations some parents are going to flip shit that we told our kids to look up to black people. Or absinence vs safe sex, we'll never agree on that one and neither will tax payers.
E) On a side note I was hoping to see another of your posts, like the ones concerning healthcare, with charts, graphs, anecdotes, and references. But I guess there really can't be science in politics and we're left to rely on our beliefs.
 

etiolate

Banned
If realizing the absurdity of the entire system, and realizing that no matter who you empower, what really needs to change will NEVER be changed, then consider me dumb. I refuse to lend my good name to the system and provide it with it an air of credibility that it entirely does not deserve.

How is Loki wise and yet a JORDAN WORSHIPPER?

I can not comprehend.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
mac said:
A) Sorry I said you were not smart, it was supposed to be more a dry wit thing then a direct atttack

Apology accepted. :)

B) I'm re-reading your posts, again, and all I can find concerning the values you would teach are the ones I quoted you, expect the opposite of course.

Well then you obviously didn't look hard enough. :D Here you go:

...namely, respect for others, an eschewal of materialism and licentiousness, temperance, and charity (i.e., good deeds).

You can add to that tact/civility, which is not only generally missing from our personal interactions (or at least more absent than it used to be), but also from common political discourse, as evidenced by the prevalence of smear campaigns and invective.

And a bit about the effect that I believe a return to one of these values (temperance) would have on society:

it would affect everything from personal financial woes incurred due to excessive spending (though some is of necessity, much is not), to teen/single-parent pregnancies and its attendant ills, to drug use and its accompanying evils, to excessive corporate greed-- you name it, and a return to this one value would have a marked effect if people were exposed to it from a young age and society put its stamp on such a value. Instead, we live in likely the most intemperate culture in history (or on the short list of the top two or three). The results of the disavowal of these simple, sane moral values are all around us...

These are just hasty examples, obviously, but I feel they are relevant.


C) Once again, saying you're not smart was supposed to follow my original musing that I though you were smart. Just an off-hand remark that if delivered quilckly, well timed, and with a bit of grace would've been funny. I must've failed.

Spectacularly. :D

D) On the topic of teaching morals in school I believe there can be no overt method to teach children. If we teach them to repect all races and sexual orientations some parents are going to flip shit that we told our kids to look up to black people.

And what is wrong with looking up to black people who happen to be upstanding, virtuous citizens? Nothing at all (as I'm sure you'd agree); the belief that certain people will object to this actually speaks to my point: we, as a society, need a return to sensible values and need to be adamant about instilling those universal values. Racism is not sensible; an appreciation for solid, prudent, good people is sensible, regardless of race or sexual orientation. Thus, not only would we be teaching the children this in the schools, but also the parents, since these values would be transmitted to all members of society by various sources (ideally, that is. Obviously, there are numerous impediments to such productive habituation, including ingrained racism among various sectors of society; in light of this, change would come over the course of decades, but it would come imo).

Or absinence vs safe sex, we'll never agree on that one and neither will tax payers.

Espousing temperance in life, in general, would take care of things such as wanton indulgence in sex among younger and younger children, among many other things (as previously noted). "Abstinence" does not have to be framed in a religious context, nor does it necessarily have to mean that people should "abstain until marriage"; preach temperance and mastery of self and you'll indirectly teach people how to control those urges and avoid those possibly disastrous scenarios (such as having sex before you're emotionally ready or before you lack the maturity to approach it intelligently, with protection. Or having sex merely in the hopes of "feeling good", which is an empty pursuit-- speaking, here, of a psychological emptiness here that one attempts to fill by intimacy, the same way they may try to fill it with drugs or booze; obviously a psychologically healthy individual can have sex for pleasure-- I speak here specifically of an emotionally needy person seeking "wholeness" through such acts, which happens all too often and leads to tragic social consequences).


As far as "agreement" goes, well, you're never going to have unanimity on ANYTHING. I believe that the sorts of things I'm speaking of are sensible, and can be made palatable to people of various persuasions, being concerned, as they are, with the betterment of self (as opposed to promoting a specific ideology, be it religious or secular), which will consequently lead to the betterment of society as a whole. If things are shown to be in the best interests of society, and framed in such a way that the populace buys into it, since they feel it would lead to a more healthy society (which it undoubtedly would), then I believe it would be both feasible and beneficial.



E) On a side note I was hoping to see another of your posts, like the ones concerning healthcare, with charts, graphs, anecdotes, and references. But I guess there really can't be science in politics and we're left to rely on our beliefs.

Exactly. Things can be made more precise, obviously, but that would necessitate longer posts, and I really don't have the time (nor does anyone necessarily want to be subjected to my ruminations :p). Ultimately, such political and ethical questions come down to matters of personal philosophy, and I feel that anybody who's ever contemplated life to any significant extent has a "personal philosophy" that would require at least a small book to fully flesh out. Though I hope to write such a book sometime before I die (if only to pass along what I feel I've learned to my children), I unfortunately do not have it completed at this time; so I hope you'll forgive me if I pass on requests for further elaboration. ;) :p


You're free to look me up in 50 years, though... :D



I simply feel that certain values promote social harmony and well-being, and that these should be embraced, rather than spurned (as they are currently) in favor of sham "values" such as materialism, hedonism, boorishness and intemperance-- all of which are presently "advocated" by our society in one form or another through various channels.

The values we currently instill in our children (and our entire populace) are not conducive to a sane, productive, and sustainable society imo. And this has nothing at all to do with Democrats or Republicans-- they are both equally at fault for foisting spurious values upon the nation, or at least in shirking their civic responsibility by not doing anything to prevent their proliferation or mitigate their deleterious societal effects.



Hope this was clear enough, because, as I said, I'm not going to elaborate further. I need me some R&R. :)



EDIT:

etiolate said:
How is Loki wise and yet a JORDAN WORSHIPPER?

I can not comprehend.

Indeed, I am an enigma on many levels. ;) :D

<removes tongue from cheek>
 

Mashing

Member
College degree's really mean shit... I mean I've seen people with Masters degrees that can't even turn on a computer.

Now chew on that for a minute.


Edit: Anyway, in all seriousness you'll notice most of the low percentage states are the ones with large amount of minorities. That's probably the main reason the breakdown is such as it is.
 
Legislating morality is fine and dandy in my books, so long as the objectives that the moral content seeks to accomplish can be justified in accordance with the objective interests of society.

What you're doing, in effect, is changing the preferences of citizens so that they're better suited to fit their own 'objective' interests, or the interests of society. Objective in the sense of 'goods' that are preferred regardless of cultural influences, that can be quantified. Society isn't at a loss for having adopted a new cultural trend that replaces the old. There's no intrinsic value to culture besides the value it holds to public curiosity. It's value is how it can improve the lives of the citizens.

If your belief cant be quantified, then it probably is seeded in your own beliefs - as a consequent of your upbringing, which is a product of the cultural atmosphere you grew up in.

The general reason why the subjective interests (as in, the supposed warm and fuzzy feeling that you get for having government policy stay in line with your own morals) ought not be considered is because they're transitional. It's only valued so long as that culture persists. In the long run, and i hate to use that term, the new culture will be valued as much as the old one was prior, with the difference being the sustainable increase in objective 'good' in the society.

Agreeing on common, universal interests is the dificult part. Generally speaking, health and wealth would fit under that umbrella without much of an argument.
 

etiolate

Banned
One of our current educational mantras is 'Knowledge is Power', but we haven't taught the responsibility that comes with that power. I would teach ethics and humanities at a young age, to go along with the sciences and math, arts and english that are our basics. We have too many scientific or reactionary answers to issues. Teenage pregnancy? Abortion. School shootings? Stricter rules and Security. I'm voting for Kerry and you're voting for Bush? Well then you're an idiot. It goes the other way around. We mame and murder, insult and yell at each other over issues like abortion and gay marriage. So we create more hate out of dichotomies, mutual close-minded behavior and grouping. We know that American marriage is a farce, we know materialism is strong, we know teenage pregnancy is a social problem we try to treat medically. We don't deal with the roots of the problem. The issues that cause highschool shootings were obvious when I was in highschool. People just find excuses to ignore these problems. We just say "status quo" instead of doing the hard things and move along without care. The media is oft irresponsible. Again with the shootings, they were quick to blame music and videogames in order to cover up the amount of carnage they put on TV every day. We have some messed up values where materialism, greed and lack of modesty of teen pop stars is acceptable, but cursing by some rockstar is the end of the world.

If there's one thing that becomes more obvious day by day to me, it is that we are raising horrible excuses for human beings.
 

Korranator

Member
If realizing the absurdity of the entire system, and realizing that no matter who you empower, what really needs to change will NEVER be changed, then consider me dumb. I refuse to lend my good name to the system and provide it with it an air of credibility that it entirely does not deserve.


The system-- and this country-- is broken. And yet you look to imbeciles beholden to various special interests to fix it for you. Who's the dumb one here? ;) :p


Obviously, not everybody who participates in the system is "dumb"-- we all have different beliefs. But trust me when I tell you that I have given these matters enough thought and consideration to realize that nothing that I personally believe needs to be changed will change in any meaningful way. Oh sure, this or that candidate's views on certain issues mirrors my own, but their integrity is instantly compromised by all the other boneheaded stances they take, their lack of nuance of thought, and the fact that both of them have long ago sold out to special interests. Don't like that assessment? Too bad. Think I'm "dumb" for it? Oh well...somehow, I'll live. :p
there is always the lesser of two evils.
That's the type of mentality that allows for the two party monopoly to continue to just throw out idiot 1 versus idiot 2. There are other choices besides blue and red, and if enough people realized that and actually voted for them then things would indeed change.
 

Triumph

Banned
Korranator said:
That's the type of mentality that allows for the two party monopoly to continue to just throw out idiot 1 versus idiot 2. There are other choices besides blue and red, and if enough people realized that and actually voted for them then things would indeed change.
Indeed.

Although I agree with Loki's assertions that the system and the country are broken, I have to wonder if he's willing to DO anything about it. I understand and can agree with the idea that you wouldn't want to support that system, that participating in it would only give a tacit stamp of approval to something you don't believe in or support. But I wonder if you're willing to fight for something better. There are other options, as Korranator has said, to vote for.

Even if you are completely, 100% unwilling to vote, I have to ask if you're willing to engage in other avenues of social change? I'm in no way attempting to attack or cast aspersions upon you, Loki. But it's obvious that you care about these things a great deal, and your care has led you to think about them at length. I guess what I'm asking is, do you translate that thought into action of some sort? It would be a shame for someone as intelligent as you to have deep feelings about something, think about it at great length, and not act upon those thoughts and feelings.

Like I said, I don't know if you have an active role in any religous or civic groups attempting to change society for the better. But I would hope that you do, because I think that the gap that has to be bridged is between people who have morality and people who have intellect, and the people who can do it are those that have both and make informed decisions after drawing from them.

My .02.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Abba:



No offense, but it's kinda hard to understand what you're getting at; if you can make it a bit clearer (in terms of your prose, not the abstruseness of the concepts you're using), it'd be appreciated. I'll try, however, to speak to your points as best I can understand them. So forgive me for going at this in such a piecemeal fashion.


McLesterolBeast said:
Legislating morality is fine and dandy in my books, so long as the objectives that the moral content seeks to accomplish can be justified in accordance with the objective interests of society.

And I firmly believe that the moral content of the values I'm advocating does, in fact, square with the objective interests of society. It is in no way a religious stance that would only benefit or appeal to a narrow segment of society. For instance, is lowering the rate of drug use in our society objectively desirable? Clearly it is, both in terms of eliminating the personal tragedies resultant from drug use as well as the financial toll it exacts upon our society (lost productivity, prison and policing costs, rehab programs, the risible and fruitless "war on drugs" etc.). Similarly, is lowering the incidence of teen pregnancies a worthwhile goal for society? Again, the answer is unequivocally yes, both for the personal tragedies that would be averted (girls who can't continue their education or follow their dreams due to the very real burdens imposed by an unplanned pregnancy, children born to parents who didn't want them etc.) as well as a reduction in the costs borne by society as a result of such births (increased utilization of welfare programs, the need for larger and more comprehensive day care programs in schools etc.).


The point is that I could perform such an analysis for any pressing social issue, and in each instance, it would be evident that the result is clearly objectively beneficial not only for the individual, but in the best interests of the entire society as well. And the incidence of nearly every one of these pressing social maladies would be drastically reduced by the promotion of some of the very simple, yet very sound values I mentioned earlier-- namely, temperance, civility, an eschewal of materialism and licentiousness for their own sake, respect (both self-respect and interpersonal respect), and charity. Certainly such social ailments will not just "disappear" once we start returning to some of these ethical values, but I believe that over time things will change; moreover, such a society will be sustainable, being based in sound practice and time-tested values.


So as we can see, such values are indeed objectively beneficial for a society; that's the reason why they've been advocated by secular philosophers and commentators for centuries now. They have tangible, desirable results.


What you're doing, in effect, is changing the preferences of citizens so that they're better suited to fit their own 'objective' interests, or the interests of society

Ok, this is where you begin to lose me. Based upon this post and what I've said previously, how can it reasonably be said that I'm trying to "change the preferences of citizens so that their desires better conform to the interests of society or their own objective interests"? I simply don't understand how you're coming to that conclusion. Allow me to ask for clarification by asking a yes/no question that I'd like answered directly, which will help me get a better grip on what you're saying:


Are certain states of affairs objectively desirable for the individual and society? Your usage of quotes for the word "objective" suggests that you do not believe that certain situations are, nearly without exception, detrimental to the overall well-being of the individual and the society of which they are a part. So I ask whether you believe that there exists certain objectively desirable conditions in general-- yes or no?


Now, if you're alluding to a situation where the interests of the individual run counter to the interests of society, well, that's different. We are then within our rights to ask precisely why such a person's interests are so at odds with society's best interests. And, more often than not, the answer to that question is faulty habituation/acculturation. Obviously, I am not envisioning a society of automatons, where a person is "not allowed" to do as they please even if it's contrary to the wishes of "society"; what I am saying is that society is under no obligation to condone such unproductive actions and behaviors through laws or programs or culture, as we do currently. Society must, of necessity, tend to its own perpetuation even when its individual constituents may not; a society's resilience in the face of social ills such as drug use or teen pregnancy (to use the examples already given) is dependent upon both its contingency programs (rehab, day care, welfare etc.) as well as its ability to successfully limit the occurrence of said ills. It is in this latter capacity that I feel we fail in our charge all too often. No reasonable person advocates eliminating programs that aid or assist those who stray from sound social practice, but, similarly, I feel that no reasonable person would oppose taking sensible steps to lessen the frequency and extent of such occurrences.


For instance, if it is deemed to be objectively desirable for society to decrease the rate of teen and single parent pregnancies (which I believe to be true), then how can it be said that society cannot or should not take reasonable steps in ensuring or promoting those ends? Only a fool argues that, "because people disagree on what is desirable, society has no business advocating specific measures to ensure desirable states of affairs", because such a comment entirely misses the point; the point is that NOBODY (this is a relative "nobody"-- there are always fringe-dwellers who would argue for anything) would argue that increasing drug use is beneficial for either the individual or society (hard drugs, at least). Only a person bereft of judgment would argue that it is beneficial to either the society or individual to have more teen pregnancies as opposed to less. In the libertarian tradition, one might reasonably object by asserting that the state has no right to disallow drug use or premarital sex-- and indeed it doesn't (and wouldn't); this is my point. In such a society as I describe, the state would NOT curtail the right of people to do as they please; rather, it would merely not condone or encourage certain practices, either explicitly or implicitly (as we do currently), while tending to its own best interests. The people who do ultimately end up straying from sound doctrine (which will inevitably occur, since we are possessed of free will) will be supported by the appropriate social programs, be it rehab, or counseling (for, say, minor instances of violence), or day care etc.


My argument is that, at some point, a society has to take stock of what sort of values (secular values, mind you, but sound, proven values) will promote the best interests of the multitude (i.e., society) and help to perpetuate its values and culture. Certainly, culture is always perpetuated no matter the specific content of the values being espoused by the society-- but if certain values lead to an unsustainable society, and thus threaten the very existence of that society, then that can rightly be construed as a threat to the perpetuation of the society, and action must be taken; I certainly feel that much of our present culture is both objectively wrong and/or shortsighted and that this constitutes a very real threat to the continued existence of our society in the long term. Also keep in mind that by "culture" I am speaking not only of entertainment or media, but also of our political and legal culture as well, which tolerates certain excesses and prohibits certain reasonable measures from being taken as well.



Objective in the sense of 'goods' that are preferred regardless of cultural influences, that can be quantified.

While I certainly believe that the conditions that I posit as "objectively desirable" have quantifiable, beneficial results (lower incidence of crime, poverty, preventable illness and death etc.), you again lose me when you speak of "goods". These are not extrinsic commodities that can be bartered with, but rather intrinsically beneficial "states"; attempting to invoke a seemingly economic analogy is like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole-- it's not going to work. Though if you'd care to elaborate a bit upon the metaphor, then I'm all ears. :)

Society isn't at a loss for having adopted a new cultural trend that replaces the old.

Is this a stand-alone statement, or is it meant to be your rephrasing of what you perceive to be my argument? If the latter, then, yes, I believe that society is not at a loss for having adopted different cultural "trends" (i.e., values) provided that those values consequently lead to measurable, beneficial results (which all the values I am advocating would); if the former, then I would say that whether or not a society is "at a loss" (that is, worse off as a result) for implementing a different set of values would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, just as it would have to be for my proposed scenarios. I just happen to think that a return to the values I've mentioned would be incredibly fruitful for our society, and its benefits would thus be able to be objectively perceived, as opposed to merely speculated about or philosophized over as they are in these sorts of discussions.


There's no intrinsic value to culture besides the value it holds to public curiosity.

Define "public curiosity".

It's value is how it can improve the lives of the citizens.

Culture serves many functions, and thus has value for many reasons. One of its primary roles is to transmit certain values and practices deemed worthy by a society. Another function is to attempt to set acceptable standards of conduct on the part of its members in order to create an optimally functioning society. So its value doesn't lie solely in how it can improve the life of the citizenry, but that is a large component of its utility, yes. If not "improving", a better word might be "maintaining"-- one of the values of a culture lies in its ability to help maintain a certain standard of living amongst its people, and it does this by selectively promoting certain values to the exclusion of others.

If your belief cant be quantified, then it probably is seeded in your own beliefs - as a consequent of your upbringing, which is a product of the cultural atmosphere you grew up in.

But it can be quantified, as noted earlier. Or, more accurately, its fruits can be quantified.


The general reason why the subjective interests (as in, the supposed warm and fuzzy feeling that you get for having government policy stay in line with your own morals) ought not be considered is because they're transitional.

If the values I've been advocating herein can be considered "subjective", then every value can be considered subjective (and they can be, but I've purposely been evading the relativist angle because there can be no productive discourse on such matters if one is to adopt such a stance; I thus focus on real-world results as opposed to moral "beliefs", because they are harder to argue against-- if not in theory, then in terms of their effect on people's perceptions as to their veracity; that is, if an action or belief is seen as bearing good, tangible results for a society, few people will dismiss it merely because it can be philosophically attacked by a relativist, which everything can be, and so relativism a non-starter in these kinds of discussions imo).


Again, I'm trying to make it absolutely clear that I am not pushing "my own morals" on people-- I am pushing the very best of secular thought, and the very features and beliefs without which society cannot function optimally or be sustainable in the long run, as evidenced by history. Do you know of anybody who can legitimately argue against temperance philosophically, if we exclude relativistic arguments? Unlikely. Anybody who'd disagree with a return to civility in public and private discourse? Unlikely. And that's because such values are universally beneficial.


Further, if the values and states of affairs that I've championed can be considered "subjective" (which I've shown them not to be, but for argument's sake), and thus "transitional" and "not to be considered", then so can any values you'd care to proffer in their stead; as a result, you'd logically have to refrain from ever attempting to instill any type of values amongst a populace, since society is, by your account, constantly in flux (society does change, but I think you're overexaggerating this effect here to suit your purposes). So, clearly, if the values I've mentioned "ought not be considered", then neither should any values; what we are then left with is a moral vacuum, which is much less preferable than if we initially chose to ignore such seeming sophistry as you here offer and settle upon some firm conclusions rooted in quantifiable, beneficial phenomena, as I've stated.


It's only valued so long as that culture persists. In the long run, and i hate to use that term, the new culture will be valued as much as the old one was prior, with the difference being the sustainable increase in objective 'good' in the society.

Name me a single successful, persistent culture that did/does not advocate temperance through both words and deeds. You're attempting to get out of having to deal with the empirical results that such values bear in a society, which are without exception beneficial.


Yes, if society changes enough, then the "new culture" (say, intemperance and materialism) will be "valued" by its constituents just as much as the old one was by its constituents; where you err, though, is in stating that there will consequently be a "sustainable increase in the objective 'good' in the society." Allow me to examine this statement...


Firstly, why is the "new culture" any more "sustainable" than the old one was, seeing as how they are both ultimately transitory and destined to change (your words, not mine)? Why, because it would be more in line with the views of the current populace? That's begging the question, then: if society (i.e., culture) can influence the beliefs and practices of the populace, and vice versa, then why would a society be wrong in attempting to perpetuate certain axioms and values if it would then lead to a populace more in line with these proven values, the same way that advocating their antitheses would produce a populace beholden to those ideologies? In fact, I'd say that society would remiss if, when confronted with a choice between these two competing paths, it chose the path of advocating unproven, untested values that are of spurious benefit as opposed to time-tested values that yield good fruits in a society. It would be even more wrong if they did so just because they were unable to separate good sense from mere sophistry, which, if I may be so frank, is all that such arguments as you present seem to be: mere relativism cloaked in the guise of intellectual discourse. All of these things follow directly and necessarily from your own words.


Lastlly, you are employing the words "objective good" here mistakenly. To start with, a situation such as you propose is not necessarily objectively good, but rather would be subjectively good (i.e., deemed to be good by the populace); it would only be objectively good if it yielded verifiable, quantifiable, beneficial results for a society (e.g., lower costs, less incidence of obvious social maladies such as drug use, teen pregnancies, crime, obesity etc.). Subjected to such a litmus test, your proposed "progressive" society would invariably fail, assuming that it strayed from proven values such as those I've mentioned. So, properly viewed, this "new culture" you espouse cannot rightly lay claim to any "objective good" for its populace, but rather only subjective good; given that subjective estimations regarding what is "good" change readily in accordance with the values being sowed, while objective "good" (that is, empirically verifiable, clearly beneficial states of affairs) does not change no matter the values being inseminated (this is why, despite our licentious culture, no reasonable person argues that it's beneficial to have more crackheads than less, or more teen pregnancies than less etc.), then it holds that we should aim for the objective good-- the historically proven values-- because the subjective agreement of the populace with those mores will follow automatically, as it would for the transmission of any value set.



It is important to keep in mind throughout all of this that by "objectively good", I am referring to "those quantifiable conditions or states that are conducive to the healthy and optimal functioning of society". Insofar as nobody (again, excluding relativism, which is a non-starter imo) can legitimately argue that an increased frequency of teen pregnancies, or hard drug use, or obesity, or rape are beneficial things which are conducive to the functioning of society, they will have to concede that a decrease in such things is objectively desirable (i.e., "good"). As a result, they will necessarily have no sound logical basis for opposing the propagation of values that would tend to decrease the incidence of such social disorders, even as we continue to embrace the right of people to do as they wish-- there is no contradiction there. People can do as they wish, it's just that society is under no obligation to further those clearly undesirable ends (either explicitly or implicitly, by policy or philosophy), and so must act in its own best interests in the same way that we like to believe we're allowed to act in ours. To do otherwise is to basically commit protracted suicide, which is precisely what I feel we're witnessing in our culture today. Our present culture (i.e., the values being promoted in all spheres) is not sustainable in the long run, and will continue to inflict tremendous damage on the fiber of our nation, both morally and financially.


There is zero social benefit to be found in eschewing good sense simply to appease some diseased contrarian strain of thought that incessantly argues against reason for its own sake. We must realize what values are conducive to a sound society-- which include many of the values I've listed as well as others-- and then embrace them and be adamant in our promotion of them as a society. If we are not resolute in this regard, then I feel it will ultimately be our undoing. Signs of decay and dissolution are all around us, and yet, instead of heeding sound doctrine, we insist on listening to the chatter of people who would tell us that there are no absolutely beneficial states of affairs; in essence, they would tell us that we're too stupid to articulate with our mouths what our eyes witness daily-- and that is that certain states and actions are conducive to the healthy functioning of society and some are not. Therefore, any values which help to foster a change in society whereby these beneficial states increase in frequency cannot logically be opposed.


Again, it's the reason why it is impossible to argue against things like temperance, which would have a marked effect on everything from drug/alcohol abuse, to unwanted pregnancies, to reducing personal debt, to STD's, to crime, to obesity-- you name it, and a return to this one simple virtue (only one of many, I might note) would do wonders for our society. To be sure, the changes would not be immediate, but they would undoubtedly occur at some point in the not-so-distant future. To continue to shun (and in fact denigrate and mock) these values in our culture will only lead to ruin; I don't think that I'm overstating things when I say that, either. But if you wish, continue to believe the contrarians, the relativists, the unsettled souls who would insist that you have no basis for believing in certain (entirely secular and time-tested) values that your very eyes confirm are both useful and proper.


Agreeing on common, universal interests is the dificult part.

It's not difficult at all; in fact, I've provided numerous, specific examples of such compelling interests. 99% of society would agree that less hard drug use is preferable to more drug use; 99% would agree that less obesity is preferable to more obesity; 99% of people would agree that fewer teen pregnancies and STD's is something to strive for; 99% of people would agree that less personal debt is preferable to the accumulation of more debt; 99% of people would agree that less corporate greed is preferable to more greed.


In all of these instances, advocating simple temperance would, over the course of time, have a dramatic effect on the incidence of such phenomena. In light of this, it is entirely nonsensical to stand against the cultural espousal of such a value, unless one believes the phenomena previously noted (i.e., drug use, teen pregnancy etc.) to be beneficial to society (in which case such a person is totally off the mental map imo) or is being contrary and seeking to perpetuate ultimately meaningless ideological "disagreement" (despite the near consensus on such issues that I just noted) for the sake of argument, in which case they stand opposed to the functioning of society. Opposition to these values would require an argument predicated upon a lie-- a lie that says that people are not aware of, or capable of understanding, what is beneficial for them and their society.


Unlike such people, I'm not a big believer in endless contemplation at the expense of our well-being. I favor meditation and reflection, but we must ultimately be able to arrive at some measure of truth-- if not philosophically, then in terms of the observable states that correspond to a healthy society, which is something that 99% of society can agree upon for most issues, as noted. I repeatedly use temperance as an example because I happen to feel it is one of the most widely applicable virtues, and the one which has fallen most out of favor in our society; the results are all around us.


People are free to take issue with what I've said here (and they no doubt will), but I honestly feel that advocating certain core ethical beliefs that have stood the test of time would accomplish more than the enactment of specific policies or plans attempting to deal with these broad social ailments, if only because people can justifiably disagree on the particulars of such policies and plans, yet they would be on extremely tenuous philosophical footing if they attempted to say that virtues such as temperance or civility or charity are somehow either false, not relevant, or outmoded. As a result, these are values we can all get behind for the right reasons-- and those reasons are because they would help to engender certain objectively desirable states of affairs in society, which would eventually lead to an optimally functioning society. These are quantifiable results springing from ethical maxims, and, seeing as how they carry the weight of empirical evidence behind them, I believe they are not as easily dismissible as sophists or contrarians would have you believe.



At the very least, adoption of said maxims deserves consideration, not scorn. These are not "my" morals, nor is any of it religious in nature at all. Anyway, time for bed. Please forgive me if I don't post in this thread for a while-- I think I've filled my quota. :p
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Triumph:


Thanks for the kind words; in light of the above post, I hope you'll understand if I put off responding until tomorrow. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom