The Other Side

[Jake]

Everything, of course. And yes, there is only one right answer to every question.

 

What I mean here is that no, I don't my views are absolutely right all of the time and there may be more than one way to answer questions and solve problems. I'm willing to negotiate on issues, but I feel that some people here aren't. Fine - that is their deal, but their approach - and I'm not necessarily talking about you here sexual chocolate - seems to just be to bitch about Bush getting reelected and then tell everybody else they are fucking stupid for voting for him and Bush should die. This is truly is dumb and to a certain extent, is similar to how politicians in Washington, DC operate. And people wonder why nothing ever gets done.

[selkirk]

I can certainly agree that there needs to be some give and take on both sides. The left wing has some serious whiners and fundies as well and they need to stfu. It's just been my impression that many liberal policies chose to err on the side of personal choice, over government mandate when opinions strongly differ. This doesn't prevent anyone from making a more moral decision. But legislating moral decisions forces everyone into the same box. It often seems the liberal viewpoint allows for the conservative one to exist, while the opposite isn't true.

[EWolfe]

stupid postdeleted due to inability to clearly state intent

Edited November 11, 2004 by MisterE

[tread_tramp]

Bush may have won the election and fooled most of the people, but his false moral image won't fool God. That's the one vote that counts.

 

<irony>

You must be a religious fanatical nut from a red state!

</irony>

So are you suggesting that having a 'religious sense' puts you in Bush's camp. Bush did a skillful job of exploiting the religous sensibilities of a large sector of our society. But that does not give him a monopoly on being moral or religous. I missed the irony.

[catbirdseat]

I can certainly agree that there needs to be some give and take on both sides. The left wing has some serious whiners and fundies as well and they need to stfu. It's just been my impression that many liberal policies chose to err on the side of personal choice, over government mandate when opinions strongly differ. This doesn't prevent anyone from making a more moral decision. But legislating moral decisions forces everyone into the same box. It often seems the liberal viewpoint allows for the conservative one to exist, while the opposite isn't true.

A very astute observation. I am impressed.

[Jake]

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this moral issue then. I have no problem with Bush trying to uphold his moral sense of things - I think that is why many people voted for him. They believed he reflected their morals and would fight to maintain them.

So, maybe the problem here isn't Bush. Maybe you should be asking why do many Americans believe that morality should be protected across the country while other Americans don't.

Edited November 11, 2004 by Jake

[Jake]

I think what you have is people saying "I don't like the moral direction this country is going and I will vote for somebody who I think will put it on the right track." These people aren't interested in saying "well, it (insert questionable moral issue here) doesn't hurt me so they can do what they want" because they feel it does in fact have a negative impact on them and the country because it is wrong.

[selkirk]

I've stated this before, but on questions that are so morally cloudy as abortion or gay marriage, (and regardless of everyone's opinion as to their own rightness, these issues are morally cloudy in the sense that a broad spectrum of intelligent people disagree about the basic tenets of the decision) that the government should err on the side of personal responsibility and personal freedom, so long as it doesn't impose itself negatively on someone else. That seems like one of the basic tenets of this country.

[slothrop]

I think the Iraqi occupation is being painted as much worse than it is by all the political opponents of Bush.

 

Unfortunately, Bush and his allies immediately label anyone (journalist, foreign leader, elected official, voter) who questions the war or its success as dangerous/meddling in our affairs/politically motivated/unpatriotic. So your statement is a tautology. It's a very effective ploy.

[slothrop]

Jake, you make a good point. A lot of people apparently want the government to step in and legislate morality. Why it's OK to legislate morality, but not to control gun purchases, levy taxes, or regulate business, is what confuses me about the Republican platform. But let's assume that a lot of people ignored those other issues (cuz they did) and voted for Bush so he'd put some morals back into our degenerating society.

 

So why is government better at enforcing morality than churches and families? That seems to be the assumption. I don't think that's the government's job. To me, government is for protecting the public welfare and religion and family are for teaching moral values.

 

As for Bush himself being a beacon of moral values... sure he was born again, quit knocking back a fifth of JD every weekend, and is not sexy whatsoever. But he certainly has one major moral failing, one that damages his credibility as a leader: he refuses to admit to mistakes or accept responsibility for failures or missteps. To me, that is immoral and weak. I lose respect for a person who cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. A leader bears an even heavier burden, since he must take responsibility for his subordinates, too. Time and time again, Bush has failed to show courage and take the heat.

[Skeezix]

I've stated this before, but on questions that are so morally cloudy as abortion or gay marriage, (and regardless of everyone's opinion as to their own rightness, these issues are morally cloudy in the sense that a broad spectrum of intelligent people disagree about the basic tenets of the decision) that the government should err on the side of personal responsibility and personal freedom, so long as it doesn't impose itself negatively on someone else. That seems like one of the basic tenets of this country.

Bingo!

[sexual_chocolate]

So why is government better at enforcing morality than churches and families? That seems to be the assumption. I don't think that's the government's job. To me, government is for protecting the public welfare and religion and family are for teaching moral values.

 

Is killing a moral issue? We legislate against it (selectively, of course!).

Stealing: A moral issue?

Assault?

(Sporadic) Protection of Old-growth? A moral issue?

Abortion? Is not a fetus being killed? Why not legislate?

[Jake]

So why is government better at enforcing morality than churches and families? That seems to be the assumption. I don't think that's the government's job. To me, government is for protecting the public welfare and religion and family are for teaching moral values.

 

Well, I don't think that government will be any better at enforcing morals than the church or families (I think the government stinks at most things it tries to do though.) However, I think people feel that as much as churches or families may try (and it's obvious that they don't always succeed here - dysfunctional families, Catholic Church), they need extra help. And people are hoping the government will provide this help.

[selkirk]

pulls out soap box, steps up, looks around to see if there's an audience today...

 

If people are hoping that outlawing anything they see as "immoral" is going to fix all the screwed up people in this country they're at best sadly mistaken, or self deluded.

 

Legislation is not capable of lowering the divorce rate.

It hasn't been successful ending polygamy.

It's not capable of ending cycles of domestic violence.

It's not capable of ending cycles of sexual abuse.

It's not capable of preventing women from ending pregnancies when they're sufficiently desperate.

It's not capable of preventing the increased sexualization of young people, or preventing underage sex.

Teaching only absyinance is not capable of this either. (does anyone thing that a single thing a teacher in highschoolsays about sex will slow down the process one iota?)

It's not capable of preventing people from forming same sex couples.

It's not capable of preventing people in positions of authority from abusing it. (Weather it's catholic priests, christian ministers, or teachers, or cult leaders)

It's not capable of making everyone think and believe the same things you do.

It won't make everyone like you.

It's not capable of preventing your wife or husband from cheating on you.

 

So what are we left with?

It is capable of seperating people who are harmful to society from society. It is capable of punishing people for anti-social or dangerous behaviours.

 

However I get the impression that what most people are hoping for is that if they legislate against something that they're going to prevent it from happening in the first place. I just don't think that's possible. The law is only capable of punishing people who've already done something wrong, or making something more difficult, more dangerous, and more expensive to come by, while creating another black market. If people want something and are willing to pay for it, then someone will provide the service. End of story, no if's and's or but's.

 

Laws and enforcement didn't get rid of drugs, and they won't. Laws and enforcement haven't gotten rid or prostitution, and won't. Do you want me to keep going?

 

If you want to prevent all of these bad things from happening, then you need to start with individual families, by fixing the problem at it's source. You want to end violence cycles? You should probably start with social programs, give women and children a support structure and a mechanism to get away from it. Provide everyone involved with counseling and a way to grow in positive directions. You want to stop teens from having sex? You had better start teaching them to think for themselves and think clearly, give them enough confidence to avoid peer pressure and a safe and stable home. You want to cut down on the number of abortions? Cut down on the number of pregnancies, by getting young people to realize the consequences of their choices, and making contraception available, and understood.

 

Treating a symptom has never solved anything, even if it does make you feel warm and fuzzy, and that's what arresting someone and/or fining them is, it's addressing a symptom, not the fundamental problem. (Save homosexuality, in which case I think the symptom is the intolerance shown by others towards it)

 

You know what's it's going to take to solve all of these problems in our society? Personal responsibility, and civility towards others. So, either you as a person need to begin supporting those social programs that you think are valuable and worthwhile and educate people effectively, or and god forbid this, if you want the government to solve these problems, then were going to need more money for social services and social programs, which I have never heard a conservative or republican support. It's your choice, but passing more laws, and trying to "legislate morality" isn't going to fix a damn thing.

 

thanks for putting up with me

 

... steps down of the soapbox.... Someone elses turn?

[Jake]

Hey not bad. I think you are right on saying that government isn't gonna actually succeed in fixing anything. BUT, the government does provide a voice to society in saying that these problems ARE bad. The people are the ones that gave this voice to the gov. So while I don't have much hope in the gov fixing anything (or really even want it that involved in social programs - leave that up to the church, community, etc), it is useful in providing society a way to collectively say "this ______ moral issue is bad." Silence, I think, is a way of condoning an issue.

[PONCHO&LEFTY]

According to liberals, mass murderers commit crimes because of a genetic flaw, and gays are born that way. Choice does not come into the equation - it's all genetics. There's plenty of fodder to mock right there.

Were you not born heterosexual then? Was there a time in your life that you decided to be strait? Because if there was you might have some issues in the future. To say someone picks to be with the same sex is asinine and naïve.