• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

theREALkoreaboy said:
you're kidding, right? you havent been here for the past 10 pages while an entire peanut gallery of 20-somethings had aneurysms over teachings from "a 2000 year old book"? or how "despicable" people like me were for suggesting that sociological institutions that have evolved for centuries might not be things to trifle with?
Click to expand...

History suggests that trifling with them might not be a bad thing.

you people have been perfect examples of the thesis of this book. social, moral, ethical, and religious norms are objects of scorn for you. you definite morality entirely on YOUR terms, it is entirely individualistic, and it is entirely relativistic. you people are poster children for what this book is studying.
Click to expand...

The problem you (and the authors of the book you continue to preach from) continue to miss is that all of those "norms" aren't necessarily good things. Not necessarily all bad either, but nothing to blindly accept as the way forward.

Again, be a student of history. I notice how quickly you ducked my Newton example after you played the "glory of god" card.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
i think it is far, far more important for society, for the greater good, and for children that marriages stay together than for each party to "feel free to lead their own life" satisfying their own wants, desires, or whims.
Click to expand...

So you advocating maintaining children in potentially dangerous, often abusive or psychologically damaging circumstances, than being in a more stable, happy, loving environment, just to maintain marriage?
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
i think it is far, far more important for society, for the greater good, and for children that marriages stay together than for each party to "feel free to lead their own life" satisfying their own wants, desires, or whims.
Click to expand...

There is KB with his selfish, individual moral compass again.
 
msun30 said:
yes. for thousands of years homosexuality was looked down upon, criminalized, stigmatized -- you name it.

over the past 50 years or so it has incrementally been more accepted across society. people became allowed to be openly gay. buggery laws were abolished. the last legal impediment to full inclusion is the right to marry.

so, there you have it -- incremental change.
Click to expand...

and i have agreed with that change. repeatedly. i have said again and again that "the gays" deserve to be happy, and to live their lives together in relationships if they want. i think homosexuality is (rightly) widely accepted, but i continue to argue that it doesnt follow from that that traditional marriage should be redefined.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
and i have agreed with that change. repeatedly. i have said again and again that "the gays" deserve to be happy, and to live their lives together in relationships if they want. i think homosexuality is (rightly) widely accepted, but i continue to argue that it doesnt follow from that that traditional marriage should be redefined.
Click to expand...

Alexis de Tocqueville, is that you?

"There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honoured. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."
 
MindzEye said:
The problem you (and the authors of the book you continue to preach from) continue to miss is that all of those "norms" aren't necessarily good things. Not necessarily all bad either, but nothing to blindly accept as the way forward.
Click to expand...

never said that. never said all those "norms" were good things. i have said that western society, rooted in christianity, has done a better job than pretty much any other society on earth gradually eliminating the "bad norms" and developing good ones. one of those good ones is traditional marriage.
 
One of the most influential people I read in my teens was Jacques Ellul. I brought it up a few months ago and it's worth bringing it up again because we have a PERFECT application of it.

Ellul.....one of the methods used was to flood people with information, nee propaganda to establish a narrative.....

Also within Propaganda Ellul claims that "it is a fact that excessive data do not enlighten the reader or the listener; they drown him. He cannot remember them all, or coordinate them, or understand them; if he does not want to risk losing his mind, he will merely draw a general picture from them. And the more facts supplied, the more simplistic the image".[25]:87 In addition, people become "caught in a web of facts they have been given.


Then look at this. On face value, it appears to tell a story to reinforce an agenda.


3.1 Million Green Jobs Across America

Green jobs employed 3.1 million people across the United States in 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Thursday.

This figure represented 2.4 percent of all jobs nationwide that year, was spread across the country by location and sector, and is the first set of solid federal data defining the size and scope of “green jobs,” which until now have been quantified only by individual states or policy organizations.

Beyond comprising a major slice of the US economy, green jobs also dwarfed fossil fuel industries. National Journal reports there were only 783,000 jobs in the oil, gas, and coal-mining industries during January 2010 (the most recent month available from BLS).

BLS broadly defines green jobs under the category of Green Goods and Services (GGS) as those “found in businesses that produce goods and provide services that benefit the environment or conserve natural resources.” The GGS survey includes 120,000 businesses and government entities across 333 industries.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/03/23/3-1-million-green-jobs-across-america/
Click to expand...

Well, reality is COMPLETELY different. All of a sudden, garbage pickers, steel mills and parking lot sweepers are "green jobs".

The above story is simply flooding the masses with propaganda to reinforce an agenda.

A recent Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) report defines and counts the green jobs in the American economy.[1] Cheerleaders for the President’s program of green jobs mandates and spending point to the study as confirmation of green jobs’ economic importance. However, analysis of the BLS data provides more data to support green jobs satire than green jobs subsidies.

The BLS study counts 3.1 million green jobs, 2.2 million of which are in the private sector. Just a little digging into the data shows that only a small fraction of the 3.1 million jobs could have been created by green subsidies and mandates. In addition, most of the green jobs in the BLS study do not fit the popular image of green jobs or jobs of the future.

*The electric power generation industry has 44,152 green jobs. This may seem like a lot, but only 4,700 are in renewable power generation, including 2,200 in wind, 1,100 in biomass, 600 in geothermal, and only 400 in solar. Though these totals do not include jobs in the manufacture or installation of these power sources, they pale to the equivalent green jobs count in nuclear (35,755), which accounts for over 80 percent of all green jobs in electric power generation (NAICS code 22111).

*The BLS assigns a green jobs classification to 461,847 jobs in manufacturing. What this number really means is not at all clear. For instance, broken down to the four-digit NAICS level, the largest green jobs providers in manufacturing are steel mills (43,658 jobs). Over 50 percent of all steel mill jobs are green. This high fraction of greenness is driven by the industry’s reliance on scrap steel for the majority of its inputs, not by the greenness of the goods produced with the steel. The trend toward greater use of scrap steel is decades-long and is not the result of any green jobs initiatives.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/bls-green-jobs-report-less-than-meets-the-eye
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
theREALkoreaboy said:
and i have agreed with that change. repeatedly. i have said again and again that "the gays" deserve to be happy, and to live their lives together in relationships if they want. i think homosexuality is (rightly) widely accepted, but i continue to argue that it doesnt follow from that that traditional marriage should be redefined.
Click to expand...

But....all of your arguments about why traditional marriage are a societal necessity...also apply to "gay" marriage (which is, simply called marriage in Canada).
 
leafman101 said:
There is KB with his selfish, individual moral compass again.
Click to expand...

wrong. so wrong. if i was living solely by my "selfish, indivudual" moral compass i would have dumped mrs.KB and/or my kids during those times when times were tough, or i wasnt 100% happy, or when someone or somewhere else caught my eye. it is far LESS selfish to struggle through the tough times even though it might not be your idea of absolute bliss at the time.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
never said that. never said all those "norms" were good things. i have said that western society, rooted in christianity, has done a better job than pretty much any other society on earth gradually eliminating the "bad norms" and developing good ones. one of those good ones is traditional marriage.
Click to expand...

Well, you've spent quite a bit of time on the recent pages moaning and bitching about the audacity of young people, thinking that they know better than 1000's of years of societal norms. Now, you admit that not all of those societal norms are good things....but, that you know which are good, from that which are bad.

How are you any better than the moral relativists you despise so?
 
MindzEye said:
But....all of your arguments about why traditional marriage are a societal necessity...also apply to "gay" marriage (which is, simply called marriage in Canada).
Click to expand...

no they aren't. because by definition a gay relationship can't produce children. it isn't really a societal necessity for gay couples to stay together to rear children they can't have.
 
MindzEye said:
Well, you've spent quite a bit of time on the recent pages moaning and bitching about the audacity of young people, thinking that they know better than 1000's of years of societal norms. Now, you admit that not all of those societal norms are good things....but, that you know which are good, from that which are bad.

How are you any better than the moral relativists you despise so?
Click to expand...

i'm not saying I'M better. i am saying that most of those norms that have survived and that have passed the test of time and scrutiny and debate are better.
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
and i have agreed with that change. repeatedly. i have said again and again that "the gays" deserve to be happy, and to live their lives together in relationships if they want. i think homosexuality is (rightly) widely accepted, but i continue to argue that it doesnt follow from that that traditional marriage should be redefined.
Click to expand...

"i have agreed with the change, except for changes that i disagree with".

and ohweeohwow another contradiction. so you agree with those changes (abolishing buggery laws, public acceptance of homosexuality), despite them being inconsistent with christian/biblical morals... but disagree with gay marriage because it falls afoul of christian/biblical morality.

which begs the question, do you actually agree wtih those changes, or do you only agree wtih them for the sake of not sounding like a bigot/homophobe in the context of this discussion?
 
JaysCyYoung said:
Alexis de Tocqueville, is that you?

"There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honoured. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom."
Click to expand...

you understand that he's arguing AGAINST "equality" there and calling it "depraved", right?
 
theREALkoreaboy said:
i'm not saying I'M better. i am saying that most of those norms that have survived and that have passed the test of time and scrutiny and debate are better.
Click to expand...

With that logic, we would have never ended institutionalized slavery...it lasted 1000's of years. At some point in time, people went against societal norms, used their internal moral compass (the same thing the book you keep quoting shits on continuously) and determined that the way those people were being treated wasn't right.

This is similar. Societies across the world are deciding, one by one, that the way homosexuals are being treated isn't right...and they're correcting the injustices, as they should. Again, there is no criteria one can name that justifies tradional marriage that also doesn't justify gay marriage. Science kind of ended that...
 
JaysCyYoung said:
So you advocating maintaining children in potentially dangerous, often abusive or psychologically damaging circumstances, than being in a more stable, happy, loving environment, just to maintain marriage?
Click to expand...

no. i'm not advocating that. i have never argued that divorce should be banned in all circumstances. if parties in the marriage are suffering from significant and repeated physical, sexual, or psychological abuse they should be able to free themselves from that marriage. but i think many, i would probably say even a majority, of divorces arent as a result of significant or repeated abuse. they are because someone got bored, or their eye wandered, or they found it too hard, or they wanted the "freedom" to do what they wanted without being "tied down" by kids or their spouse, so they split. and because traditional marriage has been significantly corroded, more and more people have found it very easy to do that. and they justify it on very selfish grounds, by using language like "i wasn't happy", or "i needed my freedom", or "i loved myself more than i loved my spouse", or "i needed to find myself outside the marriage", or any other variation of that kind of narcissistic BS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top