why liberals are better than conservatives?

[clevin]

because liberals just can't go as low as conservatives to force something in other people's throat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110201672.html
The automated call asks Maryland voters whom they support in the U.S. Senate race: Republican Michael S. Steele or Democrat Benjamin L. Cardin.

The follow-up question asks whether "medical research" should be "conducted on unborn babies." If the answer is no, the voice responds: "Fact: Ben Cardin voted to allow stem cell research to be done on unborn babies. Fact: Michael Steele opposes any research that destroys human life."
how shameless, I can describe these people as humans anymore, they are machines or animals.

ps, i shouldn't say liberals, since there aren't liberals, I should have said, "why humans are better than conservatives".

[Desertrat]

I wish some Internetters would learn the meaning of the word "some".

On some issues, I guess I'm off to the right of Attila the Hun. That doesn't affect my view that abortions are mostly a woman's business and not that of everybody else. Nor make me hostile toward medical research or cloning or whatever.

I've found that it's common for me to agree with the goals of many who style themselves politically liberal. The argument, most of the time, is how to achieve the goals.

I know a lot of very conservative folks who don't give a tinker's dam about somebody's enjoying a joint. Who think the whole war on drugs is actually a war on the Bill of Rights. Who think such horrors as the Patriot Act and other, related near-unanimous congressional votes are nothing but a theft of liberty.

The only real difference between these fringe liberals and fringe conservatives who infest Congress is the sort of "stuff" they want to cram down ALL our throats.

IMO, your "basic middle" of all people run about half mostly-liberal, half mostly-conservative in their political views. Roughly. It's the rabid five percent on each end of the spectrum that mess things up for all of us. The other five percent on each end are the few who actually offer new thought.

'Rat

[clevin]

when "some conservatives" are dominating, where are you "moderate conservative"'s voice? if you don't speak, then you are not important, just like I disregard the existence of the liberals, why should I pay attention to "real republican" when they do nothing to distance them from the "some conservatives"?

[Thomas Veil]

Well, I think you both have a point. Republicans are not one monolithic body, especially since there are two definitively different divisions in the party right now. On the other hand, the only division that is truly dominant is the far-right religious nuts; the traditional Republicans have meekly allowed them to run roughshod over them, and essentially bring the party to ruin.

Back to the topic at hand: although clevin's post is a generalization too, it's not too far from the truth. While I'm sure there are some liberals who use campaign tactics they should be ashamed of, almost all the really horrendous, evil stuff I've been reading about has come from the Republican camp. Like these push polls.

[Desertrat]

All across the political spectrum, I read or hear about "allowed". If those with whom you disagree have the votes, you're not "allowing" anything.

"...almost all the really horrendous, evil stuff I've been reading about has come from the Republican camp."

Most of the folks who post at this particular website believe that. But, there are many websites where most of those who post believe just the opposite. In their view, it's the Democrats.

Me, I figure it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I pay little attention to the rhetoric from either side. Most of it is just the pot calling the kettle black, same as the last twenty-five bi-ennial election cycles I've suffered through. Only the names have been changed, to protect the guilty.

'Rat

[Chundles]

Here the Liberals ARE the Conservatives. It's the Labor party that are the liberals. Oh, and the Greens are reds.

[leekohler]

when "some conservatives" are dominating, where are you "moderate conservative"'s voice? if you don't speak, then you are not important, just like I disregard the existence of the liberals, why should I pay attention to "real republican" when they do nothing to distance them from the "some conservatives"?

You will never get moderates to speak up. They view their fringe as psychos and don't feel they need to say anything. BTW- how often do you hear from moderate Christians or Muslims? Never. They assume the "fringe" will go away no matter how much damage they cause.

[Thomas Veil]

All across the political spectrum, I read or hear about "allowed". If those with whom you disagree have the votes, you're not "allowing" anything.

"...almost all the really horrendous, evil stuff I've been reading about has come from the Republican camp."

Most of the folks who post at this particular website believe that. But, there are many websites where most of those who post believe just the opposite. In their view, it's the Democrats.

Me, I figure it's six of one, a half-dozen of the other. I pay little attention to the rhetoric from either side. Most of it is just the pot calling the kettle black, same as the last twenty-five bi-ennial election cycles I've suffered through. Only the names have been changed, to protect the guilty.

'RatCan the people at these websites reference any ads where Democrats played on ignorant people's fears of black men dating white women? Or where Democrats claim that Republicans want to let convicted child molesters enter the country? Or that Republicans want to abort black babies? Or that Republicans pay for sex?

I don't even know why Democrats would have to make up or distort stuff. There's a plethora of true Republican corruption and incompetence to play off of.

[pseudobrit]

Back to the topic at hand: although clevin's post is a generalization too, it's not too far from the truth. While I'm sure there are some liberals who use campaign tactics they should be ashamed of, almost all the really horrendous, evil stuff I've been reading about has come from the Republican camp. Like these push polls.

With the rise of Rove as political strategy god, I'm sure political science majors will be studying and employing his tactics across the spectrum in the coming years.

Right now it's confined to the conservative camps because Rove's tactics haven't been successfully modified for liberal usefulness.

[Thomas Veil]

Right now it's confined to the conservative camps because Rove's tactics haven't been successfully modified for liberal usefulness.I'm not sure that's entirely true.

In 2004, the conservative base was brought to the polls by pet issues like gay marriage. In 2006, in several states around the country, Dems are energizing their base with ballot issues that raise the minimum wage. Same tactic, although in the Democrats' case there is more of a legitimate issue. The timing, however, is hardly coincidental.

In other cases I hope Rove's tactics are not adopted by the Democrats. It's often a mistake to just copy your opponent, especially when they are doing things that are morally questionable. You can hardly claim to hold the moral high ground that way.

The Democrats have drifted somewhat from their principles over the years, but if they ever feel they have to resort to the kind of outright mean-spirited lies that the Republicans use, then the Democrats are lost for good and don't deserve to win any more than the Republicans do.

[KingYaba]

Here the Liberals ARE the Conservatives. It's the Labor party that are the liberals. Oh, and the Greens are reds.
:eek: What is next? Toilets flush the other direction? ;) :D

[clayj]

:eek: What is next? Toilets flush the other direction? ;) :DNo, next is simply getting toilets. ;)

[Chundles]

No, next is simply getting toilets. ;)

Toi-let??

It's true though, the Liberal party is known for it's conservative fiscal and social policy. The current Liberal government - in power now since early 1996 - has been arguably our most right wing government since Menzies who was PM for something like 18 years leading up to the Vietnam War.

The Labor Party is supposedly the left but have of late been closer to the centre, they are a heavily factioned party and over the last ten years factional in-fighting has meant that no strong, capable leader has emerged so we all voted for the devil we knew.

The Greens are now the "far" left but are too small yet to be a force. They are large enough however to gain enough seats in the senate or the reps to sometimes hold the balance of power. Last time this happened, one senator from Tasmania held the balance of power and so pretty much every legislation had to appease him in some way - it was bloody annoying.

Currently the Libs have control of the reps and the senate and are passing so many new laws it makes my head spin.

The US-press referred to our government as "centre-right" which shocked me because from our point-of-view they are most definitely "all-the-way" to the right.

[Agathon]

because liberals just can't go as low as conservatives to force something in other people's throat.

My own view is that it is because liberalism is a reasonably coherent ideology.

I have never had a conservative explain the principles that conservatives stand for, without the result being otiose or ridiculous.

Conservatism is not a political ideology. It's a collection of prejudices, some of which don't fit with the others.

[Thomas Veil]

My own view is that it is because liberalism is a reasonably coherent ideology.

I have never had a conservative explain the principles that conservatives stand for, without the result being otiose or ridiculous.

Conservatism is not a political ideology. It's a collection of prejudices, some of which don't fit with the others.Liberal elitist. ;) :D

[Desertrat]

Agathon, your comment is sorta indicative of the problems with political labels in today's worlds, with all the competing views.

For me, I guess being conservative in great part means a belief in the fundamental principles of our Constitution: Limited government is a large part of the deal. The passage of years has created an improvement in actual equality among people of all types and persuasions, but the fundamental ideas are unchanged.

All that I'm against, as near as I can tell from trying to figure out why do I think as I do, is the Big Nanny of the State trying to pass a bunch of laws "for my own good". I'm not interested in telling anybody what to do; I don't need somebody X-thousand miles away messing with me--or you.

I definitely believe that we are all responsible for the consequences of our decisions and actions.

As far as conservatives and change, I have to laugh at the idea that conservatives believe, "Change is bad!" Nope, there's nothing wrong with change if two facets are thought about. First, is it actually an improvement; and second, are there unintended consequences which can bring harm.

I dunno if you see this line of thinking as ideology or philosophy or what. Doesn't matter; your opinion is as irrelevant as mine...

:), 'Rat

[KingYaba]

But what about the death penalty and abortion? Aparently it is OK to kill babies, but not mass murderers.

If you don't know, I say kill 'em both. mwahhahahaa

[eva01]

But what about the death penalty and abortion? Aparently it is OK to kill babies, but not mass murderers.

If you don't know, I say kill 'em both. mwahhahahaa

well they aren't babies yet if they haven't been born :/

[pseudobrit]

But what about the death penalty and abortion? Aparently it is OK to kill babies, but not mass murderers.

Though you've misstated the situation, does it make any more sense than the GOP position of killing adults who committed crimes as children but not embryos that would have been flushed down the drain?

[KingYaba]

Though you've misstated the situation, does it make any more sense than the GOP position of killing adults who committed crimes as children but not embryos that would have been flushed down the drain?

You think I'm going to defend the GOP on this issue? Hahahaha. They are hypocrites too.

[Desertrat]

Seems to me that if you believe life, or "humanity", or the soul, begins at conception, you have no choice but to see abortion as murder. If you believe that human rights status does not begin until later on, you need not regard abortion as murder. One question, seems to me, is that of viability. If the foetus can be incubated and saved to become an infant/child/adult, abortion at that stage is readily seen as murder.

Can't have it both ways.

Isn't all this liberal/conservative BS a matter of "Pick your issues"? After all, the liberals in Congress voted right along with the NeoCons on the Patriot Act. They voted the authority and money for L'Affaire Iraq.

If liberals are so wondrously in favor of liberty and freedom, where is the legislation--at least, introduced bills, if not passed--to the effect that government has no business telling you what you can ingest? Where are the bills to de-fund this War On Some Drugs?

Pick your pet issue, I guess, and ignore any notion of consistent political philosophy...

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

One question, seems to me, is that of viability. If the foetus can be incubated and saved to become an infant/child/adult, abortion at that stage is readily seen as murder.

Without wanting to head fully down this tired road again, I will point out that the same situation arises with regard to life support. If the person can be put on machinery and saved to possibly recover but the relatives choose not to, that "plug-pulling" could just as easily be seen as murder.

As far as the law is concerned, viability has been discussed and ruled on, and has been the deciding factor in elective abortions, which typically cannot happen past the first trimester.

[Agathon]

Agathon, your comment is sorta indicative of the problems with political labels in today's worlds, with all the competing views.

For me, I guess being conservative in great part means a belief in the fundamental principles of our Constitution: Limited government is a large part of the deal. The passage of years has created an improvement in actual equality among people of all types and persuasions, but the fundamental ideas are unchanged.

This is what I mean. Everyone short of Kim Jong Il believes in limited government. The practical question is how limited it should be. You can't just say that smaller government is an end in itself. At some periods in history, more collective spending is required, at other periods less. Being in principle for one or the other is a fetish rather than responsible thinking.

All that I'm against, as near as I can tell from trying to figure out why do I think as I do, is the Big Nanny of the State trying to pass a bunch of laws "for my own good". I'm not interested in telling anybody what to do; I don't need somebody X-thousand miles away messing with me--or you.

This is the function of the state. Sometimes, letting people do their own thing leaves us worse off. Economists call these "collective action problems". In such cases, there is no alternative but for the state to regulate.

Of course, some laws are bad laws, and some regulations exist where there is no need, but there will always be laws for our own good, because human beings left to their own devices will work themselves into the pit.

I definitely believe that we are all responsible for the consequences of our decisions and actions.

How do you reconcile this with the scientific view of the human person? Responsibility is a cultural norm, not an objective fact. At least that is the only conclusion we can draw, given our modern world view.

As far as conservatives and change, I have to laugh at the idea that conservatives believe, "Change is bad!" Nope, there's nothing wrong with change if two facets are thought about. First, is it actually an improvement; and second, are there unintended consequences which can bring harm.

I think everyone believes that. That's why I can't see it as a defining aspect of conservatism.

I dunno if you see this line of thinking as ideology or philosophy or what. Doesn't matter; your opinion is as irrelevant as mine...

:), 'Rat

:)

[iBookG4user]

well they aren't babies yet if they haven't been born :/
So you're saying that just because it hasn't been born it's not a human? Is it not a living creature? Does it have a heart beat? Just the birth determins whether it's a human or not? If the baby dies just seconds before it gets birthed, was it never a human?

And you think conservatives are bad because they say that killing babies should be illegal (abortion). Is that not murder? It's killing a human being, so isn't that murder?

Secular humanism says no religion should be taught in school, but it's labeled a religion by the USA, so isn't that contradicting it's own belief? If evolution is true, shouldn't that mean that the world should be getting better as time goes on? But isn't the world getting worse, students think that cheating on tests isn't bad, people think that stealing is not wrong. If there is not a God then ethics do not exist, so there is not absolute laws that are in place. If there are no absolute laws in place then there cannot be countries, only individual people, because there would not be leaders because they would have beliefs. If people have beliefs then they have absolute laws that they abide by.

Also, if there are no absolute laws to abide by, then how can someone place judgement on someone else? If there are no absolute laws, then there can be no laws in general, so nothing is wrong. Murder is not wrong if there are no absolute laws, so if someone killed everyone in the world, then he did no wrong because there are no absolute laws.

[vniow]

If there is not a God then ethics do not exist, so there is not absolute laws that are in place.


Ethics existed long before religion did.

[iBookG4user]

Ethics existed long before religion did.
And when exactly did religion start? Wouldn't the original humans have asked, "Where did I come from?"?

[zimv20]

And when exactly did religion start? Wouldn't the original humans have asked, "Where did I come from?"?
who are the original humans? did they have language yet, in order to even phrase the question?

before "where did i come from?", i would expect other questions, like "what is this strange sound i'm making?", "what should we call this thing which is chasing us?", and "why am i sticky?"

[iJon]

If there is not a God then ethics do not exist, so there is not absolute laws that are in place.
That's a pretty bold statement. I have myself a pretty good set of morals and ethics I've developed over the years without the help of a book or God telling me what to do. They are all based on common sense and social norms that we are surrounded with all day. Now I will agree that the Bible offers a pretty good guide to living a good life but is no means necessary to live a morally and ethically good life. To be honest there are quite a few things that the Bible and God preach that I would have a problem with and would lessen my moral values as a person.

jon

[Desertrat]

"How do you reconcile this with the scientific view of the human person? Responsibility is a cultural norm, not an objective fact. At least that is the only conclusion we can draw, given our modern world view."

The scientific view of the human person seems to need to go back to the research lab. :D

It may be a cultural norm, but it's a better societal way to avoid the underlying justifications for some form of welfare state: "They can't help themselves; we must help them." "They" weren't responsible for the decision to cut class, to not take advantage of a free education, to learn some sort of marketable skills? "They" aren't responsible for running up credit card bills and letting the kids go hungry, or losing their house?

I couldn't blame the gods if my design for a dam and spillway failed. I couldn't blame anybody else if I spun out my race car. It was my responsibility to do better in the design or the driving. If I'm gonna speed, it's my responsibility to have the money to pay for the ticket. If I camp in the bed of a dry creek, am I responsible, or is society, if the rains come?

Et cetera and so on and so forth.

The nice thing about assuming personal responsibility is that when you have successes, you can pat yourself on the back and grin. First-place trophies are neat.

:), 'Rat

[jelloshotsrule]

You will never get moderates to speak up. They view their fringe as psychos and don't feel they need to say anything. BTW- how often do you hear from moderate Christians or Muslims? Never. They assume the "fringe" will go away no matter how much damage they cause.

not true. there are at least a few moderate christians on this site. i think of myself, solvs, and i know there are a few others.

this thread (not aimed at you lee) started with massive generalizations, and really is silly.

[jessep28]

WHen we go to vote, we often have to chose the lesser of two (or more) evils. Any candidate isn't going to satisfy 100% of the population.

I'm a republican who is pretty conservative fiscally but more moderate socially. Does that mean I should be grouped with Bush, etc? I hope people don't do that with me. I am who I am.

I am voting Ben Nelson (D) for Senate because I don't like the Republican Candidate Pete Ricketts who runs on a socially conservative platform. Nelson is a conservative Democrat anyways, so Nebraska isn't getting a Harry Ried by voting him back in.

In the end, Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives need each other to balance things out. If one group had too much control, then we would see things to go the extreme.

You are seeing the see saw effect that this congressional election is looking like 1994 when Republicans took over both Houses and pretty much held that majority.

[pseudobrit]

So you're saying that just because it hasn't been born it's not a human? Is it not a living creature? Does it have a heart beat? Just the birth determins whether it's a human or not? If the baby dies just seconds before it gets birthed, was it never a human?

And you think conservatives are bad because they say that killing babies should be illegal (abortion). Is that not murder? It's killing a human being, so isn't that murder?

Secular humanism says no religion should be taught in school, but it's labeled a religion by the USA, so isn't that contradicting it's own belief? If evolution is true, shouldn't that mean that the world should be getting better as time goes on? But isn't the world getting worse, students think that cheating on tests isn't bad, people think that stealing is not wrong. If there is not a God then ethics do not exist, so there is not absolute laws that are in place. If there are no absolute laws in place then there cannot be countries, only individual people, because there would not be leaders because they would have beliefs. If people have beliefs then they have absolute laws that they abide by.

Also, if there are no absolute laws to abide by, then how can someone place judgement on someone else? If there are no absolute laws, then there can be no laws in general, so nothing is wrong. Murder is not wrong if there are no absolute laws, so if someone killed everyone in the world, then he did no wrong because there are no absolute laws.

Someone's been feeding you tracts, haven't they?

[LethalWolfe]

If evolution is true, shouldn't that mean that the world should be getting better as time goes on? But isn't the world getting worse...

:confused:


Lethal

[Agathon]

"How do you reconcile this with the scientific view of the human person? Responsibility is a cultural norm, not an objective fact. At least that is the only conclusion we can draw, given our modern world view."

The scientific view of the human person seems to need to go back to the research lab. :D

How so? Our own psychology is determined by evolutionary constraints. We are organic creatures. The idea of an entity with free will, that is not subject to the laws of nature has been thoroughly destroyed by the scientific revolution. One example of this is the problems we have with determining when a criminal is to be judged mentally ill. The law is vague and inadequate here.

It may be a cultural norm, but it's a better societal way to avoid the underlying justifications for some form of welfare state: "They can't help themselves; we must help them."

In some ways it is a useful norm, in other ways it is not. It's particularly ridiculous when it is applied to people like drug addicts. In general "personal responsibility" is something that reasonably well-off middle class people can exercise with little or no effort, but which is much harder for the less fortunate to live up to.

But the overwhelming problem with it is that it is not real, and thus it should be consigned to the dustbin of history... yada yada yada...

And it has very little to do with the welfare state. The welfare state is simply a mechanism to solve problems that free markets can't solve, or aren't very good at solving (like health care and education). One of these problems is poverty, which affects everyone. One thing I can't stand about the USA is the constant spectacle of human degradation. In my country, there are basically no homeless people (I saw one in 25 years) or beggars. It certainly makes it a nicer place to live. Most people hate having to wade through a bunch of homeless lunatics on the way to work. Similarly, most people don't like the idea of their fellow citizens living in crushing poverty. The welfare state is the only way to satisfy these wants.

The idea that people will just sponge off the state is contradicted by the evidence. When I was a kid my country had the world's most generous welfare scheme and it also had full employment. Welfare rolls only started rising when our country (along with most others) stopped being able to provide decent jobs to its people.

Having said that, the conservative approach to this is just as ridiculous as their approach to crime. Shouting "be responsible" just doesn't work, and nor does filling prisons to overflow or condemning children to poverty.

"They" weren't responsible for the decision to cut class, to not take advantage of a free education, to learn some sort of marketable skills?

Many people would like to do this. Unfortunately in most countries such education costs a lot of money. If you are living close to the line, it is simply irrational to take such a large risk. It's simply a lot easier for a middle class person to go to university. Someone who is poor and from a single parent family faces a much greater hurdle. The main difference is that poverty breeds a continuous sense of insecurity, and from that flow many other social ills.

Look, I teach at universities. Please don't try to paint universities as filled with students who are "personally responsible". Most of them are here on their parents' ticket (and frankly, their parents deserve more effort from most of them).

"They" aren't responsible for running up credit card bills and letting the kids go hungry, or losing their house?

Funny how predatory credit card companies seem to escape blame for extending credit to people who have no business having it. Also it's odd how a society filled with endless consumerist propaganda finds it strange that people will go into debt to secure consumer goods.

The nice thing about assuming personal responsibility is that when you have successes, you can pat yourself on the back and grin. First-place trophies are neat.

Except you can't. People who succeed tend to have parents who pushed them as children (there are exceptions, but they are few and far between). My favourite are those "businesspeople" who lecture others about personal responsibility, but who would have had no chance of even starting a business if their parents hadn't backstopped them.

Personal responsibility is basically what is easy for white middle class males to do. It's not an objective phenomenon, and so its no surprise to see it skewed in favour of those who promote it due to their prominent place in society.

Essentially, it is reasonably wealthy white people saying "be like me". Well, not everyone is like them.

[iBookG4user]

:confused:


Lethal

evolution is saying that humans are evolving into better humans over time. But stealing was looked down on, a 100 years ago, but now students think it's ok. The crime rate is higher, etc. etc. So, humans if anything are getting worse as time goes on, which would disprove evolution.

[eva01]

evolution is saying that humans are evolving into better humans over time. But stealing was looked down on, a 100 years ago, but now students think it's ok. The crime rate is higher, etc. etc. So, humans if anything are getting worse as time goes on, which would disprove evolution.

evolution means change not getting better. Species adapt and change over time, it isn't meaning species are getting better. Sometimes evolution leads to detrimental abilities or functions.

Mutations are an example of evolution on a micro-level and can be either hazardous or beneficial.

Also if you look at it as better humans then you can look at it like this. Evolving into better humans doesn't mean culturally better or having better manners. If killing people and stealing happens to make your life better, then yes evolution is leading to a better organism. Evolution has ZERO to do with what is right or wrong in a societal manner. It only has to do with what makes the organism(s) continue (hopefully).

[pseudobrit]

evolution is saying that humans are evolving into better humans over time. But stealing was looked down on, a 100 years ago, but now students think it's ok. The crime rate is higher, etc. etc. So, humans if anything are getting worse as time goes on, which would disprove evolution.

Crime is not higher than it was 100 years ago. Nor is stealing viewed in any better light than it was then.

In taking this sour view, you ignore the progress of civilization over the past century. We've devolved so quickly we've landed on the moon, broke the sound barrier in the air and on land, we've harnessed the atom and eradicated plagues. We have cars and planes that take us anywhere and computers with the internet that allows us to talk in this very forum.

What a horrible race of creatures we've become. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

i think of myself, solvs, and i know there are a few others.

Though a religious person, I wouldn't necessarily think of myself as a Christian per se. But thanks for thinking of me nonetheless. ;) Definitely moderate. As for the evil Republicans, I prefer to think of them as neocons, as most real Reps find the lot of them and what they stand for pretty despicable.

Aren't labels fun.

[LethalWolfe]

evolution is saying that humans are evolving into better humans over time. But stealing was looked down on, a 100 years ago, but now students think it's ok. The crime rate is higher, etc. etc. So, humans if anything are getting worse as time goes on, which would disprove evolution.

Step 1. Read up on evolution.
Step 2. Read up on crime statistics.
Step 3. Post intelligent comments about evolution and crime statistics.

I think you skipped 1 and 2 and just went straight to 3.


Lethal

[solvs]

I think you skipped 1 and 2 and just went straight to 3.

I think step 3 got skipped too.

[LethalWolfe]

I think step 3 got skipped too.

Good call. I should have said, "attempted to go to step 3."


Lethal

[Chundles]

evolution is saying that humans are evolving into better humans over time. But stealing was looked down on, a 100 years ago, but now students think it's ok. The crime rate is higher, etc. etc. So, humans if anything are getting worse as time goes on, which would disprove evolution.

Evolution does NOT mean that species are getting "better." A slug is just as evolved as a human - it's all about being fit to reproduce and survive. Evolution does not imply that something is better, just different.

[pseudobrit]

not true. there are at least a few moderate christians on this site. i think of myself, solvs, and i know there are a few others.

I'm Roman Catholic.

[jelloshotsrule]

I'm Roman Catholic.

that makes two of us. nominally. ;)

[pseudobrit]

that makes two of us. nominally. ;)

I don't think there's any other kind. Except 80-year-old Italians and Poles and a few priests and nuns, of course. And maybe the Pope.

[Desertrat]

Agathon said, "Unfortunately in most countries such education costs a lot of money. If you are living close to the line, it is simply irrational to take such a large risk. It's simply a lot easier for a middle class person to go to university."

No argument, but I'm not talking about "most countries"; the U.S. is of concern, and K-12 is tax-paid and available for all. Wilfully ignoring what's available is a voluntary action--and is irresponsible.

Nor am I talking about universities; many avenues to economic well-being are available to high school grads. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to own and operate a backhoe and dumptruck. After I dropped out of professional civil/environmental engineering in 1979, and wound up in the "dirt bidness", I managed to sell enough work to pay for mine. I started out with not much capital and a cash-flow income of around $700/month.

In 1953 I was broke enough to contemplate a petty crime in order to get Thanksgiving dinner in jail; the radio said they'd have turkey and dressing. I made do with grilled cheese. My "Greetings!" from Ike was a relief, really.

I look at what's called "poverty" in the U.S. and compare it with what I saw in South Korea in 1954/1955, and who am I to believe? What folks here call poverty, or my own lying eyes?

'Rat

[solvs]

A slug is just as evolved as a human

I read that as humans are evolving into slugs. Makes as much sense as anything else. Actually, that would explain a lot.

[bowens]

In some ways it is a useful norm, in other ways it is not. It's particularly ridiculous when it is applied to people like drug addicts. In general "personal responsibility" is something that reasonably well-off middle class people can exercise with little or no effort, but which is much harder for the less fortunate to live up to.

But the overwhelming problem with it is that it is not real, and thus it should be consigned to the dustbin of history... yada yada yada...

And it has very little to do with the welfare state. The welfare state is simply a mechanism to solve problems that free markets can't solve, or aren't very good at solving (like health care and education). One of these problems is poverty, which affects everyone. One thing I can't stand about the USA is the constant spectacle of human degradation. In my country, there are basically no homeless people (I saw one in 25 years) or beggars. It certainly makes it a nicer place to live. Most people hate having to wade through a bunch of homeless lunatics on the way to work. Similarly, most people don't like the idea of their fellow citizens living in crushing poverty. The welfare state is the only way to satisfy these wants.

The idea that people will just sponge off the state is contradicted by the evidence. When I was a kid my country had the world's most generous welfare scheme and it also had full employment. Welfare rolls only started rising when our country (along with most others) stopped being able to provide decent jobs to its people.

Having said that, the conservative approach to this is just as ridiculous as their approach to crime. Shouting "be responsible" just doesn't work, and nor does filling prisons to overflow or condemning children to poverty.

I guess you're right. People should throw away any responsibility and lay it all on the government. Whatever I do doesn't matter because the government will come in and take care of it. I don't care how poor you were when you grew up. You should be able to learn from the mistakes of your parents and not make the same ones. As for people sponging off the welfare system, I've seen quite a few just in my small area that do this exact thing. They don't work. They sit at home and have as many babies as they can so they can mooch more money from the government. I'm not saying I'm against welfare. I will say that I'm against how it's implemented. Instead of just sending them a check every month, why not send them to some classes and teach them a skill so they can get a job and contribute to society instead of mooching off it.

Yes, people need to grow up and take some responsibility for themselves and not rely on the government to do everything for them.



Many people would like to do this. Unfortunately in most countries such education costs a lot of money. If you are living close to the line, it is simply irrational to take such a large risk. It's simply a lot easier for a middle class person to go to university. Someone who is poor and from a single parent family faces a much greater hurdle. The main difference is that poverty breeds a continuous sense of insecurity, and from that flow many other social ills.

Look, I teach at universities. Please don't try to paint universities as filled with students who are "personally responsible". Most of them are here on their parents' ticket (and frankly, their parents deserve more effort from most of them).
I think he was talking about the US where I went to high school, for free, worked hard and got good grades so I got to go to college, for free. It didn't cost me a dime. I don't care how poor you are, I think you can afford free.


Funny how predatory credit card companies seem to escape blame for extending credit to people who have no business having it. Also it's odd how a society filled with endless consumerist propaganda finds it strange that people will go into debt to secure consumer goods.
Nice. The ole' "blame someone else for your mistake" line.

[Desertrat]

Yeah, those mean old predatory credit card companies. What they really do is provide absolute proof of Ron White's shtick: "You can't fix stupid."

When I read that the average credit card debt, per household, is somewhere north of $7,000, I gotta wonder. I owe zero; most of my friends owe zero. That means that somebody's way on past $7K. That's irresponsible, instant-gratification spending. Dumber'n dirt. I have zero sympathy for the problems of childish-behavior folks who are old enough to know better.

The upside of Stoopid is that you can buy good stuff cheap at a bankruptcy auction. :D

'Rat

[solvs]

They sit at home and have as many babies as they can so they can mooch more money from the government.

Instead of just sending them a check every month, why not send them to some classes and teach them a skill so they can get a job and contribute to society instead of mooching off it.

I get your point about welfare reform, but as a point of fact you got some things wrong. There is a limit to how many babies you can have. After that, you're cut off. And most of the time, they will go after Daddy first before paying a dime, even if you need it because he took off. And you'd think they'd make it easier to go to school, but they actually make it harder. I know, my friend is trying to do just that. After losing her job and trying to care for her sick kid after her bf took off on her, she's trying to go to school so she can get a better job to pay for child care and healthcare for her kid. It's not as easy as it should be, and she's not sure she can keep it up before having to go back to work. Not that she can find it in her area, but she can't really afford to move and it would cost more to commute to work and worry about those other expenses that welfare helps pay for. She's not happy about being on welfare, but she doesn't really have a choice. So yeah, welfare does need to be fixed, but probably not in the way most people think.

And we spend way more on corporate welfare than we do for people stuck on public aid and lazy druggies. Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of those too. But I'd rather they get their couple of hundred bucks a month and food stamps than be out there robbing me.

Oh, and a lot of those in the service qualify for food stamps and public aid. What are you, against the troops. :p Kidding. Kinda. ;)

[Agathon]

Agathon said, "Unfortunately in most countries such education costs a lot of money. If you are living close to the line, it is simply irrational to take such a large risk. It's simply a lot easier for a middle class person to go to university."

No argument, but I'm not talking about "most countries"; the U.S. is of concern, and K-12 is tax-paid and available for all. Wilfully ignoring what's available is a voluntary action--and is irresponsible.

Nor am I talking about universities; many avenues to economic well-being are available to high school grads. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to own and operate a backhoe and dumptruck. After I dropped out of professional civil/environmental engineering in 1979, and wound up in the "dirt bidness", I managed to sell enough work to pay for mine. I started out with not much capital and a cash-flow income of around $700/month.

In 1953 I was broke enough to contemplate a petty crime in order to get Thanksgiving dinner in jail; the radio said they'd have turkey and dressing. I made do with grilled cheese. My "Greetings!" from Ike was a relief, really.

I look at what's called "poverty" in the U.S. and compare it with what I saw in South Korea in 1954/1955, and who am I to believe? What folks here call poverty, or my own lying eyes?

'Rat

?

A high school diploma gets you jack nowadays.

I guess that when you went to school things were different.

[leekohler]

I think he was talking about the US where I went to high school, for free, worked hard and got good grades so I got to go to college, for free. It didn't cost me a dime. I don't care how poor you are, I think you can afford free.


As long as you have the grades, you can afford "free" yes. Average people who've been abandoned by their families (for whatever reason) can't though.

[Agathon]

I guess you're right. People should throw away any responsibility and lay it all on the government. Whatever I do doesn't matter because the government will come in and take care of it.

OK. So to fix crime, we should sponsor a series of advertisement where stern figures tell criminals to "behave" in various tones of voice. That'll work.

Or we could spend millions of dollars on prisons. That'll work. The US crime rate is higher than most other developed countries, even though it has a higher proportional prison population.

Or we could do the rational thing: see if spending money on crime prevention and welfare, in order to address the root causes of crime, will be cheaper than shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Who cares if people throw away responsibility if less people are victims of crime, and it's cheaper to lower crime this way?

What kind of retard says to a rape victim: "I'm sorry miss, in our country, we don't take preventative measures to combat crime, because we want people to take responsibility for the rapes they commit"?

I don't care how poor you were when you grew up. You should be able to learn from the mistakes of your parents and not make the same ones.

In an ideal world, you should be. In the real world, this is most often not the case. What you call "responsible" people are made and not born that way. Similarly, what is counted as "responsible" conduct just so happens to be the sort of conduct that is very easy for white middle class people to do, and proportionally much harder for poorer or coloured people to do.

Moral Responsibility is a cultural construct. It corresponds to nothing in reality. Thanks to modern science we understand that we are physical creatures, subject to the same laws as the rest of the universe. There is no free will: it is a cultural illusion.

As for people sponging off the welfare system, I've seen quite a few just in my small area that do this exact thing. They don't work. They sit at home and have as many babies as they can so they can mooch more money from the government. I'm not saying I'm against welfare. I will say that I'm against how it's implemented. Instead of just sending them a check every month, why not send them to some classes and teach them a skill so they can get a job and contribute to society instead of mooching off it.

Most welfare schemes do this. But who cares? Honestly: welfare is about keeping poor people off the streets, and giving them some sort of security. In doing this, we avoid a number of social evils.

If you want, you can understand welfare as bribing these people not to cause social problems. Of course conservatives will whine that people "should take responsibility for themselves" just the same way they whine that "teenagers should not be having sex".

Grow up, man. There are some things in the world that we can't fix. Standing around moaning for people to behave better is a waste of time. Far better to actually pay to get the results.

Yes, people need to grow up and take some responsibility for themselves and not rely on the government to do everything for them.

In an ideal world, this would be lovely. But we don't live in that world. We have to deal with the crappy one we live in. Wishing it was better might be a nice hobby, but it has no practical effect.

I think he was talking about the US where I went to high school, for free, worked hard and got good grades so I got to go to college, for free. It didn't cost me a dime. I don't care how poor you are, I think you can afford free.

Good for you.

This news just in!!! Not everyone is like you, and more importantly, not everyone is capable of being like you, no matter how hard we try to make them. Some people are just too dumb for college. Other people just can't succeed at high school. I can't play in the NHL. It's not because I don't want to, or because I didn't try enough. Even if I worked my ass off, I would still suck at hockey.

Stop complaining that everyone in the world has to be just like you. They aren't. Stop pretending that everyone is physically capable of "success". They aren't.

Deal with it.