I hear conservatives throw those words around alot. But what exactly do they mean when they say it. My cousins use this alot and they never give a real answer.
Maybe dakka can help me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hear conservatives throw those words around alot. But what exactly do they mean when they say it. My cousins use this alot and they never give a real answer.
Maybe dakka can help me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hear conservatives throw those words around alot. But what exactly do they mean when they say it. My cousins use this alot and they never give a real answer.
Maybe dakka can help me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Im serious, what are they, When they talk about them thy say "Y'know Hard Work and stuff" or "No Abortions"
On an aside, I google Traditional American Values, and I largely get left wing websites attacking the thought of it. *shrugs*
In an attempt to answer the question, I'd say things like hard working perseverence. The belief in raising oneself up. Acceptance of responsibility for ones own actions. Those are things that first come to my mind when those three words are uttered.
No gays visible, kids are ignorant slaves towards their parents, mom and dad are together with dad being the obvious superior, no women in the work force, guns for all, no foreign influence whatsoever, no minorities visible, girls are virgins until they marry, no drugs, no underage drinking and only the Army is allowed to shoot people. So basically what the 70s thought the 50s was like.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hear conservatives throw those words around alot. But what exactly do they mean when they say it. My cousins use this alot and they never give a real answer.
Maybe dakka can help me.
The idea of 1 mother, 1 father raising children in a good and Christian manner. This includes loving your neighbor, being polite and respectful, and respecting the teachings of God, Jesus and the prophets as stated in the Bible...
the people that use the term seem to look back to a golden age of the 1950s that you see on tv shows from back then something that never actually existed think happy days but with more saccharin were all you needed was a bible a gun and a dream to make it big .
TheCustomLime wrote: No gays visible, kids are ignorant slaves towards their parents, mom and dad are together with dad being the obvious superior, no women in the work force, guns for all, no foreign influence whatsoever, no minorities visible, girls are virgins until they marry, no drugs, no underage drinking and only the Army is allowed to shoot people. So basically what the 70s thought the 50s was like.
Sounds terribly boring. Just like with my games I like variety in my community. Heck I remember seeing on the news GOP members were ralling against Obama while having the confederet flag in the background.
By the way that was not an attack on republicans. I know many who are open minded, progressive, loving folks.
timetowaste85 wrote: How has nobody mentioned porno mags as a traditional American value? After all, we don't get boobies in our orange juice commercials.
Their big in Japan as well. Though their regular channels don't tend to censure a lot after a certain hour. I remember once as a kid watching Batman rape someone... I wonder how much damage was caused to my psyche because I underwent puberty in Japan.
is the 5yr old with the 'sniper rifle' and revolver? Or is it his sisters on the verge of puberty with guns?
It appears gun safety isn't part of the curriculum here. I wouldn't be too wild about someone, especially a kid, pointing a pistol in the general direction of my head.
Thats not gun safety. The little one in the center (where its aimed at) is actually the devil. Just look at those eyes. This family is terrified and forced to take this stock photo as just one more torment for the devil's amusement. I mean look at the pic of the wife/daughter on the right - if thats not a forced smile of terror I don't know what is. I mean who else but the devil would make you dress up like that? Thats also why little Johnnie has the revolver pointed at her too.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I hear conservatives throw those words around alot. But what exactly do they mean when they say it. My cousins use this alot and they never give a real answer.
Maybe dakka can help me.
The idea of 1 mother, 1 father raising children in a good and Christian manner. This includes loving your neighbor, being polite and respectful, and respecting the teachings of God, Jesus and the prophets as stated in the Bible...
I would argue tha the "American" variant is different.
We are probably talking abotu the American Dream, where you can work hard, get yoru own plot of land, and make life better for YOUR next generation. Then, sprinkle in some liberty and a bit of small D democracy.
Traditional values are in the eye of the beholder. Oftentimes, people will appeal to the founding fathers, but the problem is the founding fathers weren't some amorphous blob, they had significant disagreements among themselves.
A good example of this is the issue of Church and State.
Many will argue that the Judeo-Christian religion was meant to be vital to the governance of the country, while others will argue that the Founding Fathers were largely opposed to it, as evidenced by things like the 1st Amendment.
I personally fall into the latter category, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that different people have different views. The 2nd Amendment is a fertile ground for that kind of interpretation.
Myself, I don't give much weight to "traditional values" for two reasons.
1. It's tough to nail down what traditional values are in the first place. There's no uniform opinion among the founders, so do I appeal to the majority? What if there's no clear majority?
2. Times change. I am reminded of a joke I heard: "Everyone always says 'What would the Founding Fathers say if they saw X policy happening?' and I respond, 'That's BS, the first thing the Founding Fathers would say if they were here today would be 'HOLY **** AIRPLANES!''"
Of course, the Founders would have never known to call it an airplane, but that's not material. What is material though is how issues change over time. You didn't have automatic weapons, or abortions, or computers with webcams in the 1700s. You can't deal with those issues with a 1700s mindset, because the mindset necessary to deal with those issues couldn't have existed at that time.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:No such thing, it's a myth from the 1950s and they were bull gak then too.
I disagree. I would say that Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden are traditional American values.
I have zero doubt that many will be up in arms over this, and start claiming the pot's calling the kettle black, but it is what it is: Early America did a lot of heinous gak, and large parts of more recent America doesn't think they should've stopped.
I disagree. I would say that Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden are traditional American values.
I have zero doubt that many will be up in arms over this, and start claiming the pot's calling the kettle black, but it is what it is: Early America did a lot of heinous gak, and large parts of more recent America doesn't think they should've stopped.
I actually wouldn't disagree completely. In a time those things mattered a lot.
For me 'Traditional Values' is a meaningless term that tends to be whatever the person invoking it happens to believe. Cultural and societal values shift constantly and the idea that there is a 'Traditional Value' or set of that is universal across over 300,000,000 people is itself neglecting reality. It exists and is invoked solely to faliciously back up falicious arguments. Not to mention that being 'traditional' in and of itself is stupid point to start arguing from for anything.
At most we could probably agree that American values include civil liberty, individual freedom of choice, and suspicion of government. Good luck getting Americans to agree completely on what any of those terms actually mean tho
KalashnikovMarine wrote:No such thing, it's a myth from the 1950s and they were bull gak then too.
I disagree. I would say that Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden are traditional American values.
I have zero doubt that many will be up in arms over this, and start claiming the pot's calling the kettle black, but it is what it is: Early America did a lot of heinous gak, and large parts of more recent America doesn't think they should've stopped.
Agreed, we should have gone vertical on the Manifest Destiny thing too. Thats ok, it gave Canada sufficient time to perfect its domestic beers and maple syrup production. It will be assimilated into the collective soon enough.
At most we could probably agree that American values include civil liberty, individual freedom of choice, and suspicion of government. Good luck getting Americans to agree completely on what any of those terms actually mean tho
And yet I'd argue they include apple pie, McCarthyism, baseball, and relentless nationalism.
Don't worry when the next war of conquest comes the ruling elite will tell the rest if us poor saps what our values are. Remember like in the movie Wall Street, "greed is good". BS, not for humanity and the world.
"I will do whatever it takes to get ahead at the expense of others"
vs:
"I will do whatever it takes to get ahead in such a way it doesn't harm others."
Nature's focus is 'survival of the fittest' and we all primarily do what is best for 'ourselves' and our genetic offspring. But being intelligent animals, who don't want to smash competing genetics dead with a rock to increase the food supply for our own offspring, there is something to be said about only doing what is good for you which won't explicitly harm others.
Example: I am at the beach with my friends and family, and they decide we want 'subway' for dinner. I write down their orders and it is for like 20 subs. I go to subway, wait in line and finally it is my turn.
Scenario1: I tell them my subs 1 by 1 and force them to make all 20 subs. The action takes about 30 minutes. During this time, everyone behind me in line has various levels of responses. Some leave the store, some get angry where I quickly shout them down, some wait quietly. People who leave the store write angry letters to subway about the incident. The store also loses sales and customers from being upset. But I don't care, I got my subs as fast as possible, I thumb my nose at the situation and enjoy my subs with my family.
Scenario2: I tell them I have a large order, and ask if they can maybe have one employee work on my subs while the other employee helps other customers. This keeps other customers moving and happy as well as paying. This helps the customers as well as the store who makes more money and doesn't have issues. While I sacrifice a little time, it takes slightly longer to get my 20 subs, but I do it not at the expense of others. My family is happy, the store is happy, the employees are happy, the other customers are taken care of.
Some people are simply incapable of understanding or thinking about how their actions impact others. I feel like a lot of 'traditional values' are rooted in this selfish attitude when it should be the opposite.
I feel like a lot of 'traditional values' are rooted in this selfish attitude when it should be the opposite.
Really? Because 'Traditional American Values,' which are most commonly attributed to 50s and 60s suburban America, include lots of neighborhood interaction, kids playing together in cul-de-sacs, and a general opposite of "selfish" attitude as many of those parents were from what we consider the "greatest generation" of Americans where community was a HUGE factor.
feth, parent's today are 100% more selfish than the ones anyone is alluding to when referencing "Traditional American Values"
I feel like a lot of 'traditional values' are rooted in this selfish attitude when it should be the opposite.
Really? Because 'Traditional American Values,' which are most commonly attributed to 50s and 60s suburban America, include lots of neighborhood interaction, kids playing together in cul-de-sacs, and a general opposite of "selfish" attitude as many of those parents were from what we consider the "greatest generation" of Americans where community was a HUGE factor.
feth, parent's today are 100% more selfish than the ones anyone is alluding to when referencing "Traditional American Values"
Oh, and by the way. The person that believed in "traditional family values" would have done one of two things:
1. If they were getting Subway, with 20 different sub orders they'd have gotten 2 or 3 of the party subs and made people modify them as they wanted to, or;
2. They'd have had no need for Subway as everyone would have brought a dish to share to the beach.
TheCustomLime wrote: No gays visible, kids are ignorant slaves towards their parents, mom and dad are together with dad being the obvious superior, no women in the work force, guns for all, no foreign influence whatsoever, no minorities visible, girls are virgins until they marry, no drugs, no underage drinking and only the Army is allowed to shoot people. So basically what the 70s thought the 50s was like.
I agree with much of this but replace superior with leader. America has always had foreign influence though it tended to come from Europe. There were women in the workforce though they were expected to focus on having and raising children which left very few of them in professional roles and they were pretty much excluded from political and leadership postitions. The country seemed to thrive despite this.
Essentially traditional values are ones that promote the health and wellbeing of the family unit of husband, wife and children. It includes things like no sex before marriage, being polite to people, males giving up seats on public transport for females and young people for older people. Caring about the way you look and being well groomed. Not swearing in public. Respecting authority figures like the police. Intolerance towards bad behaviour.
Have a look at old commercials from the 50s for instance and cringe. Some things were definitely overdone and are ridiculous when looked at today such as attitudes towards females. A lot of the stuff to do with morality and respect for each other though is sadly lacking today.
Don't know what time period this is from but it's an ad for a doll that laughs. You'll sleep with one eye open with this little bundle of joy!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, and what cincydooley said.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:No such thing, it's a myth from the 1950s and they were bull gak then too.
I disagree. I would say that Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden are traditional American values.
I have zero doubt that many will be up in arms over this, and start claiming the pot's calling the kettle black, but it is what it is: Early America did a lot of heinous gak, and large parts of more recent America doesn't think they should've stopped.
Agreed, we should have gone vertical on the Manifest Destiny thing too. Thats ok, it gave Canada sufficient time to perfect its domestic beers and maple syrup production. It will be assimilated into the collective soon enough.
Actually we tried to fight Canada a couple times back in the olden days...they kicked our butts. We just don't like to talk about it. Of course if we tried again it might be a different story. Come to think of it, the whole reason we have such a ridiculous excessive amount of military spending might be because we have a subconscious national terror of losing a war to Canada again.
Most people hearing those words probably think of freedom, democracy and the promise of prosperity for anyone willing to work hard enough at it.
What would be more interesting would be to actually go ask americans what are their current values. You'd probably see that you have, in fact, very few in common. We had a national survey up here a few months back, and the only things we canadians can agree on is faith in the democratic process, gender equality and the separation of State and Church (which, admittedly, are pretty important points).
I think modern nations are simply too large to share more than a few values across the entire population.
is the 5yr old with the 'sniper rifle' and revolver? Or is it his sisters on the verge of puberty with guns?
It appears gun safety isn't part of the curriculum here. I wouldn't be too wild about someone, especially a kid, pointing a pistol in the general direction of my head.
Checked trigger discipline reflexively...at least they have that down. The girls in the front row though....I'm not a fan of using a gun to comb your hair. Other than that the only thing that really bothers me about that picture is the girl on the left might not be quite old enough to handle the kick from that shotgun (unless it's a 410, then go right ahead). I was shooting at about that age and I never hurt anyone.
Oh, and the amount of useless tactical rails on those longarms. If you aren't going to put something there just take the dang rails off...they aren't helping.
is the 5yr old with the 'sniper rifle' and revolver? Or is it his sisters on the verge of puberty with guns?
It appears gun safety isn't part of the curriculum here. I wouldn't be too wild about someone, especially a kid, pointing a pistol in the general direction of my head.
Checked trigger discipline reflexively...at least they have that down. The girls in the front row though....I'm not a fan of using a gun to comb your hair. Other than that the only thing that really bothers me about that picture is the girl on the left might not be quite old enough to handle the kick from that shotgun (unless it's a 410, then go right ahead). I was shooting at about that age and I never hurt anyone.
Oh, and the amount of useless tactical rails on those longarms. If you aren't going to put something there just take the dang rails off...they aren't helping.
I think what freaks me out is posing with guns. I never minded people owning. But gun culture just freaks me out sometimes. I know responsible gun owners take care not kill someone, this pic is just a bit much if you ask me. I just think guns should not be admired like they are in that pic.
"Traditional American Values" are what politicians say they believe in to get elected, only for us to find out they're secretly banging hookers and sending pictures of their junk to interns.
So, I suppose the real traditional American value is hypocrisy.
Cypher-xv wrote: Don't worry when the next war of conquest comes the ruling elite will tell the rest if us poor saps what our values are. Remember like in the movie Wall Street, "greed is good". BS, not for humanity and the world.
The funny (and scary) thing is that a lot of people saw Gordon Gecko as an admirable character, when the entire point of the film was to point out just how awful he was.
Well the good news is that all those people that identify as liberals in the country can teach all the people that identify themselves as conservatives what it means to do volunteer work or to donate to charities.
"Traditional family values" are more or less code for "conservative christian morality."
As pointed out, it means slightly different things in different contexts and to different audiences (and at different times), but it generally means that families are built around married heterosexual parents, with sex confined more or less to marriage. In practice, of course, it's a way of announcing your support for the white middle class, in that you oppose homosexuality, single mothers, etc. However, it doesn't alienate others, because, I mean, who isn't in favor of families or values?
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
Hotsauce. There is no set in stone American Values. Your "values" are your own. The only values I know of that's set in granite is the US Army Core Values.
Loyalty Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers. Bearing true faith and allegiance is a matter of believing in and devoting yourself to something or someone. A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers. By wearing the uniform of the U.S. Army you are expressing your loyalty. And by doing your share, you show your loyalty to your unit.
Duty Fulfill your obligations. Doing your duty means more than carrying out your assigned tasks. Duty means being able to accomplish tasks as part of a team. The work of the U.S. Army is a complex combination of missions, tasks and responsibilities — all in constant motion. Our work entails building one assignment onto another. You fulfill your obligations as a part of your unit every time you resist the temptation to take “shortcuts” that might undermine the integrity of the final product.
Respect Treat people as they should be treated. In the Soldier’s Code, we pledge to “treat others with dignity and respect while expecting others to do the same.” Respect is what allows us to appreciate the best in other people. Respect is trusting that all people have done their jobs and fulfilled their duty. And self-respect is a vital ingredient with the Army value of respect, which results from knowing you have put forth your best effort. The Army is one team and each of us has something to contribute.
Selfless Service Put the welfare of the Nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own. Selfless service is larger than just one person. In serving your country, you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain. The basic building block of selfless service is the commitment of each team member to go a little further, endure a little longer, and look a little closer to see how he or she can add to the effort.
Honor Live up to Army values. The Nation’s highest military award is The Medal of Honor. This award goes to Soldiers who make honor a matter of daily living — Soldiers who develop the habit of being honorable, and solidify that habit with every value choice they make. Honor is a matter of carrying out, acting, and living the values of respect, duty, loyalty, selfless service, integrity and personal courage in everything you do.
Integrity Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles. It requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself.
personal courage Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral). Personal courage has long been associated with our Army. With physical courage, it is a matter of enduring physical duress and at times risking personal safety. Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others. You can build your personal courage by daily standing up for and acting upon the things that you know are honorable.
The Strength Of Unity
Protecting Freedom
THE STRENGTH OF UNITY
The Seven Values of the Army really is what makes the Army unique. Believing in Loyalty, Honor, Personal Courage, Integrity—all those things are really what makes us special, because you give the guys something common to look at.
These Seven Army Values come up every day. When I get up in the morning, and I put on this uniform every day, I think about those Seven Army Values. And, it's not that I sit there and ponder them; it's that putting on this uniform, I couldn't be more proud to do what I'm doing.
As an Officer or leader in general, you're trying to use the Seven Core Army Values every day, in any decision you make every day. With your Soldiers, you want to try to make sure that not only they're carrying it out, but you're carrying it out as well.
Selfless Service, making sure that you're putting forth the same effort from the front that your Soldiers are doing—just all the little things that add up.
Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage—you learn them when you're in Basic, and that's what expected of you to make a close-knit, tight group.
That's what you want out of a unit: to be really close-knit, work with your guys really well, so the job gets done, smoothly and quickly and safely as possible.
Hmm, for some reason I saw "family" instead of "american" in the OP.
American values, like any such concept, is a bit blurred, but there are three or four main sources of what most people would probably cite as American Values: a Protestant work ethic, a puritanical sensibility of morals and decorum, enlightenment ideals of man and his rights, and the frontier need for self reliance.
None of these are in themselves unique to the US, but the blend is pretty unique.
Americans value hard work, and respect people that profit from labor. Despite what some people allege, while the average american resents the idle rich, most people respect those that earn wealth.
Americans value a conservative morality, meaning that temperance in thought and deed is respected. A teetotaler or a raging drunk will fit in less than a drinker that can hold his liquor and knows his limits. Likewise, we have a respect for efforts to appear egalitarian. Asking others to call you by a title is seen as pretentious, while a superior asking to be called by a first name is view positively. Dress and grooming is likewise likely to run towards the plain.
The enlightenment ideals of the Founding Fathers, while laughably ignored by them when they saw fit, are still key to our self perception. We see ourselves as free people, that can speak freely, do what we wish with our property, and hold the beliefs that we wish.
Finally, we respect the idea (some would say myth) of rugged individualism, such that a person that acts unilaterally is seen in a positive light, compared to more collective cultures.
there is plenty of room for corruption in these, and some are almost contradictory (puritanical morals vs. enlightenment free thought in particular), but they are pretty good values, to the extent that they can apply in a modern society.
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
Well this is just patently untrue.
Get it? Patents?!
But seriously, this would be nice, but the American system isn't exactly super for that right now. Patent trolls are everywhere, and if you're not running afoul of them, you're running afoul of Apple/Microsoft/Amazon/Google/some other tech giant with way more resources than anyone could ever hope to have.
Or, if you're talking small businesses, a lot of them won't get off the ground compared to big retailers.
This isn't to say that people can't succeed with a new idea or product, but it is very very difficult, with lots of hurdles.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
As a non-US citizen that seems like a pretty good summation to me
MWHistorian wrote:Two pages and I have yet to see a real answer.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
KalashnikovMarine wrote:No such thing, it's a myth from the 1950s and they were bull gak then too.
I disagree. I would say that Manifest Destiny and the White Man's Burden are traditional American values.
I have zero doubt that many will be up in arms over this, and start claiming the pot's calling the kettle black, but it is what it is: Early America did a lot of heinous gak, and large parts of more recent America doesn't think they should've stopped.
Agreed, we should have gone vertical on the Manifest Destiny thing too. Thats ok, it gave Canada sufficient time to perfect its domestic beers and maple syrup production. It will be assimilated into the collective soon enough.
Actually we tried to fight Canada a couple times back in the olden days...they kicked our butts. We just don't like to talk about it. Of course if we tried again it might be a different story. Come to think of it, the whole reason we have such a ridiculous excessive amount of military spending might be because we have a subconscious national terror of losing a war to Canada again.
Of course they kicked your butts. Thats before Texas joined up.
"God made Texas to train the Faithful"
-ancient Mexican saying
Cypher-xv wrote: Don't worry when the next war of conquest comes the ruling elite will tell the rest if us poor saps what our values are. Remember like in the movie Wall Street, "greed is good". BS, not for humanity and the world.
The funny (and scary) thing is that a lot of people saw Gordon Gecko as an admirable character, when the entire point of the film was to point out just how awful he was.
Gordon Gecko is a crap version of the real person: Ivan Boesky. Boesky actually gave the greed speech.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cincydooley wrote: Well the good news is that all those people that identify as liberals in the country can teach all the people that identify themselves as conservatives what it means to do volunteer work or to donate to charities.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
Me likey. You could like, found a country on these values, if you have bacon.
Three fifths or not, the idea of equal rights is suspicious at best.
In the criminal justice system, people get treated very differently by the law based on race and socio-economic status.
Police profile. Prosecutors aren't uniform in how they treat people in terms of what plea deals they offer. Judges will sometimes be more lenient to some people than others despite similar if not the same circumstances. If you have any sort of mental issues that need treatment, God help you because the system sure won't.
This isn't to say that the system doesn't have its merits, it certainly does, but "total" equality under the law is a stretch.
It's also worth mentioning that historically, the three fifths compromise was only one way people were unequal. It took until the 20th century for african-americans and women to get the vote. Laws againat interracial marriage existed on the books in many states for well into the 20th century. Segregation in sports and the real world too.
We have gotten better, but there are still problems. Homosexuals still don't have the same rights as everyone else. We're getting better, but I'd hesitate to call equal rights a traditional value, as that's a great way to get called out for hypocrisy (and not an undeserved calling out).
Equality before the law is certainly an ideal of all western civilisation. Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
Kilkrazy wrote: Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
I don't agree with a lot you say, but I think you couldn't have been more dead on then this Kilkrazy. A lot of hating going on here, but I think people would do better to focus on this.
MWHistorian wrote:Two pages and I have yet to see a real answer.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
Three-fifths.
As pointed out that has not been the case for a not inconsiderable amount of time. But if you're content to relish your role as the pot calling the kettle black - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
In 1960, First Nations people received the right to vote in federal elections without forfeiting their Indian status. By comparison, Native Americans in the United States had been allowed to vote since the 1920s
Kilkrazy wrote: Equality before the law is certainly an ideal of all western civilisation. Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
I don't disagree, at least in part, but it's one thing to try earnestly and fall short as a nation in certain limited circumstances, and another thing for a large portion (if not a majority) of the population to actively oppose measures bringing equality. The issue of homosexual rights is the best ongoing example I can think of.
Kilkrazy wrote: Equality before the law is certainly an ideal of all western civilisation. Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
I don't disagree, at least in part, but it's one thing to try earnestly and fall short as a nation in certain limited circumstances, and another thing for a large portion (if not a majority) of the population to actively oppose measures bringing equality. The issue of homosexual rights is the best ongoing example I can think of.
Well, thats because of a 21st century American Value: sticking your nose in other people's gak.
Kilkrazy wrote: Equality before the law is certainly an ideal of all western civilisation. Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
I don't disagree, at least in part, but it's one thing to try earnestly and fall short as a nation in certain limited circumstances, and another thing for a large portion (if not a majority) of the population to actively oppose measures bringing equality. The issue of homosexual rights is the best ongoing example I can think of.
God I am about to stir up the hornets nest here, but I've gotta say something. And keep in mind I am a supporter of gay marriage.
Marriage is NOT a right. Marriage is a contractual agreement by law, established by the government, state or federal.
Homosexuals have every right that everyone else has. Their is nothing in the Bill of Rights that they are not allowed. There is no true right that they have that everyone else in this nation does not have.
What they do not have is certain contractual privilideges, in some states, that heterosexuals have.
You want to look at true violators of rights for homosexuals, look at nations like Iran. There is nothing you have to compair the two of us.
Kilkrazy wrote: Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
I don't agree with a lot you say, but I think you couldn't have been more dead on then this Kilkrazy. A lot of hating going on here, but I think people would do better to focus on this.
Kilkrazy wrote: Equality before the law is certainly an ideal of all western civilisation. Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
I don't disagree, at least in part, but it's one thing to try earnestly and fall short as a nation in certain limited circumstances, and another thing for a large portion (if not a majority) of the population to actively oppose measures bringing equality. The issue of homosexual rights is the best ongoing example I can think of.
You must have missed the day in history class where we talked about the worst war in American history to free a people.
Kids these days.
Kilkrazy wrote: Equality before the law is certainly an ideal of all western civilisation. Like any human activity it may fall short of perfection. However, our values are what we aim for even if we sometimes fail.
I don't disagree, at least in part, but it's one thing to try earnestly and fall short as a nation in certain limited circumstances, and another thing for a large portion (if not a majority) of the population to actively oppose measures bringing equality. The issue of homosexual rights is the best ongoing example I can think of.
The USA has made good progress in moving towards equality before the law. There are federal laws against discrimination for gender, religion, sexual orientation etc. Compare it with 50 years ago.
The fact that some people oppose that sort of thing, might be considered as a reflection on those individuals rather than on the nation's values as a whole.
Personally I think all "marriages" should be civil union contracts. Its the word "marriage" that gets everyone's panties in a bunch in the first place.
God I am about to stir up the hornets nest here, but I've gotta say something. And keep in mind I am a supporter of gay marriage.
Marriage is NOT a right. Marriage is a contractual agreement by law, established by the government, state or federal.
Homosexuals have every right that everyone else has. Their is nothing in the Bill of Rights that they are not allowed. There is no true right that they have that everyone else in this nation does not have.
What they do not have is certain contractual privilideges, in some states, that heterosexuals have.
You want to look at true violators of rights for homosexuals, look at nations like Iran. There is nothing you have to compair the two of us.
Except the Supreme Court just this year declared DOMA unconstitutional under the 5th Amendment's Due Process clause because of its failure to confer rights to married homosexual couples. In essence, up until just this year we had a law on the books that denied rights to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples enjoyed.
Bringing up Iran is a cute ploy, but not one that really works here. We're talking about equality under law, and up until U.S. v Windsor, homosexual couples had their 5th Amendment right to equal protection denied to them. And the law that kept that right from them was enacted in 1996, not carried over from the 1700s or something (though the underlying sentiment came from then).
Again, equal rights is an "ideal" and we're slowly working towards true equality for call, but calling it a traditional value strikes me as severely revisionist.
cincydooley wrote: Well the good news is that all those people that identify as liberals in the country can teach all the people that identify themselves as conservatives what it means to do volunteer work or to donate to charities.
Oh. Wait......
You have to love this argument - conservatives are more caring because they do charity work unlike those horrible godless liberal layabouts. All you have to do is completely ignore the fact that the statistics for "charity work" the argument was originally based on include all sorts of religious stuff that as exactly knob-all benefit to the poor and needy, and that the entire reason society decided it needed a social security system(you know, the one that most conservatives constantly belittle, bemoan, and want to cut back funding for) is because charity failed to solve the problem for centuries.
But hey, I guess paying taxes knowing they help to fund social programmes that actually address people's needs and help them just doesn't cut it when compared to the chance to show off how magnanimous you are by spending a couple of hours at a soup kitchen staving off immediate starvation for people who mostly wouldn't be in such situations if there was a reasonable welfare state and mental healthcare wasn't a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
You have to love this argument - conservatives are more caring because they do charity work unlike those horrible godless liberal layabouts. All you have to do is completely ignore the fact that the statistics for "charity work" the argument was originally based on include all sorts of religious stuff that as exactly knob-all benefit to the poor and needy, and that the entire reason society decided it needed a social security system(you know, the one that most conservatives constantly belittle, bemoan, and want to cut back funding for) is because charity failed to solve the problem for centuries.
But hey, I guess paying taxes knowing they help to fund social programmes that actually address people's needs and help them just doesn't cut it when compared to the chance to show off how magnanimous you are by spending a couple of hours at a soup kitchen staving off immediate starvation for people who mostly wouldn't be in such situations if there was a reasonable welfare state and mental healthcare wasn't a privilege reserved for the wealthy.
You're missing the point, almost entirely. In the US, it's often those "liberal layabouts" (your words, not mine) touting everything they're doing for charity, etc, while most people aligning themselves conservatively don't say a word. Then the statistics bear out that people aligning themselves conservatively volunteer and donate on a nearly 2-1 basis. Again, they simply don't talk about it, or flout it on facebook. That's a very, very liberal thing. Look at me, I'm volunteering at the soup kitchen is an incredible 'look at me' moment. It's humblebragging at its finest. Liberals, especially in the 2012 election, LOVED espousing how much they 'care' about the poor and disenfranchised, but don't have the statistics to back it up. And then, somehow, the media turned the amount that Romney gave into a bad thing because either A) He could have given more, or B) too much was given to his church. Blows my mind.
And quite frankly, the Social Security system in the US is horribly broken, which is acknowledged by people on both sides. It's forced investment that for anyone under 40 is going to return less than you put in. As Dave Ramsey so famously stated, one could take 2% of the 15% of your income stolen by Social Security and get a better return than the remaining 13%.
You're missing the point, almost entirely. In the US, it's often those "liberal layabouts" (your words, not mine) touting everything they're doing for charity, etc, while most people aligning themselves conservatively don't say a word.
I went to one of the most liberal colleges in the United States, and I almost never hear one of my classmates talk about something they're doing for charity...unless they happen to work for a charity; in which case they're generally pushing a program.
It's also worth mentioning that the key reason SS is broken is because Reagan and Congress(es) broke it, the former by capping payroll taxable income (I don't think that amount is even tied to inflation), and the latter by periodically raiding the fund. The former problem is the bigger of the two. SS could be stable for the foreseeable future if the cap was raised to 250k and tied to inflation.
I'm still pissed that the effort to privatize SS was shot down. I'd much rather be in control of my own funds then leaving it in Congresses hands, so they can "raid" it at whim.
Traditional American values? Do americans still care about honest work, good mannars and Jesus?
Its like a Space Marine in 40K still dreaming of the good old days of the Crusade back in 30K.
I dunno why, but I've in warped by the Internet long enough when people ask about American values, the first thing to come in mind is someone replying with "'Merica! F*ck Yea!"
Clearly we'll both find what we want; it's the nature of statistics.
That doesn't change the fact that a principle argument of the left in regards to conservative giving is that much of it is done to the church (using Romney as an example) which has somehow become a bad, or ignoble, thing.
Clearly we'll both find what we want; it's the nature of statistics.
The evidence I provided was only meant to indicate that the relevant statistics (the word "statistics" being used generally) did not "bear out" your stated conclusion.
That doesn't change the fact that a principle argument of the left in regards to conservative giving is that much of it is done to the church (using Romney as an example) which has somehow become a bad, or ignoble, thing.
That isn't the argument you initially made, which only involved total conservative giving relative to total liberal giving.
MWHistorian wrote:Two pages and I have yet to see a real answer.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
Three-fifths.
As pointed out that has not been the case for a not inconsiderable amount of time. But if you're content to relish your role as the pot calling the kettle black - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
In 1960, First Nations people received the right to vote in federal elections without forfeiting their Indian status. By comparison, Native Americans in the United States had been allowed to vote since the 1920s
I doubt you'll find many canadians born after 1950 who do not entirely agree that our ancestors have been monstrous dicks to the aboriginal people. You know, beside those that are, also, divine right monarchists and other crazy nonsense.
Whereas I've often heard, even on this very forum, americans use the time-honoured ''well, they just had to be the winning side'' to justify every horrors committed.
always has to due with Christians. and not the sweet Precious Moments ones, the ones who don't like gays and minorities or other religions or other Christians... lol
Freedom and Liberty for all (except women, gays, minorities, Indians, animals and anyone with a different religion then us even if they're white)
MWHistorian wrote:Two pages and I have yet to see a real answer.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
Three-fifths.
As pointed out that has not been the case for a not inconsiderable amount of time. But if you're content to relish your role as the pot calling the kettle black - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
In 1960, First Nations people received the right to vote in federal elections without forfeiting their Indian status. By comparison, Native Americans in the United States had been allowed to vote since the 1920s
I doubt you'll find many canadians born after 1950 who do not entirely agree that our ancestors have been monstrous dicks to the aboriginal people. You know, beside those that are, also, divine right monarchists and other crazy nonsense.
Whereas I've often heard, even on this very forum, americans use the time-honoured ''well, they just had to be the winning side'' to justify every horrors committed.
And I doubt you'll find many Americans who agree with the 3/5 provision, barring fringe elements.
Not sure what point you're making at the end, or what it has to do with the discussion. But if you want to base your opinions about an entire country based on a small sample (and a quote that I have not seen on Dakka) then you are entitled to do so.
I doubt you'll find many canadians born after 1950 who do not entirely agree that our ancestors have been monstrous dicks to the aboriginal people.
If they hadn't done what they did Canada wouldn't exist. If you're that upset over it, give half your possessions/wealth to the local tribe and start over. More than half if you feel the need.
The three cornerstones that immediately come to mind whenever I think of America.
Yeah America is a country that is built on homosexuality as a lot of the presidents belonged to frats as young adults so they were probably doing lots of homoerotic pranks.
There's no specific set of values known as traditional values. The fact that people are listing different lists of 'traditional values' should be the first indicator, and on top of that you can add that people are pretty clearly trying to think it up as they go is the other. Now, this isn't to say the term is meaningless - it has a clear meaning, it's just that meaning isn't about a specific set of values, but about taking two broad concepts with tremendous importance to conservative voters and sticking them together.
The word tradition touches on that feeling many people have of 'how things used to be' - its harking back to a simpler time. Values touches on moral, proper living - not any specific moral but about the overall concept of being moral, both individually and as a nation. Those concepts are absolutely central to conservatives, and so 'traditional values' becomes a way of referencing those emotions.
sebster wrote: The word tradition touches on that feeling many people have of 'how things used to be' - its harking back to a simpler time. Values touches on moral, proper living - not any specific moral but about the overall concept of being moral, both individually and as a nation. Those concepts are absolutely central to conservatives, and so 'traditional values' becomes a way of referencing those emotions.
And because it's so vague it lets the individual conservative hearing the statement interpret it to mean whatever they want to hear, and doesn't have all the issues of openly saying "I agree with all of your bigoted and selfish beliefs". For example, saying "gay people are hell-bound sinners and gay marriage is an abomination before god" isn't going to win many points with moderate voters, but saying "I'm a traditional-values kind of guy" reassures the religious right that you're on their side without scaring away all the moderates. Likewise for economic beliefs. Saying "taxation is theft, and government regulation is murder" is political suicide with everyone who isn't an Ayn Rand cultist, but "I support traditional values of hard work and opportunity" keeps the wealthy donors happy while still inspiring a few happy feelings in people who aren't billionaires.
Peregrine wrote: And because it's so vague it lets the individual conservative hearing the statement interpret it to mean whatever they want to hear, and doesn't have all the issues of openly saying "I agree with all of your bigoted and selfish beliefs". For example, saying "gay people are hell-bound sinners and gay marriage is an abomination before god" isn't going to win many points with moderate voters, but saying "I'm a traditional-values kind of guy" reassures the religious right that you're on their side without scaring away all the moderates. Likewise for economic beliefs. Saying "taxation is theft, and government regulation is murder" is political suicide with everyone who isn't an Ayn Rand cultist, but "I support traditional values of hard work and opportunity" keeps the wealthy donors happy while still inspiring a few happy feelings in people who aren't billionaires.
Yep, definitely. It is very much about saying a thing that means very different things to two different audiences.
MWHistorian wrote:Two pages and I have yet to see a real answer.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.) 2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it. 3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right) 4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
Three-fifths.
As pointed out that has not been the case for a not inconsiderable amount of time. But if you're content to relish your role as the pot calling the kettle black - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
In 1960, First Nations people received the right to vote in federal elections without forfeiting their Indian status. By comparison, Native Americans in the United States had been allowed to vote since the 1920s
1. Statement is made wherein equality under law is claimed to be a traditional value. 2. Poignant and undeniable refutation is made proving the statement in 1 to be false. 3. No true Scotsman and tu quoque from the peanut gallery; both fail to dispel 2. 4. I become tired of -yet again- having to point this out.
NOTE: Canada even had residential schools until the late 1990s, and I think somewhere else also did some bad stuff at some time as well; however that is in no way relevant to what is being discussed, so try to stay on point.
Well, not to be a complete devil's advocate, but I think that one of the problems is that we think of classifying people in different ways than a person would have 240 years ago.
While the concept of "Citizen" had traction back then, it was a lot fuzzier than it is now. As any serious legal scholar can tell you, we really don't even know what was meant by "natural born" even in 150 years ago!
What's a lot fuzzier now, for us, is what we mean by "person." Sure, you'd find a few hard core humanists that felt all races were more or less equal, but most Founders were pretty comfortable with the fact that "person" meant "white person." Oh, and male only, please!
The concept of equality before the law was simpler back then, rather than worrying about if more black people were in jail, they simply asked if some people got overt privilged in the legal system. In most countries, the nobility enjoyed substantive legal privileges, most notably the right to vote or serve in government, and the founders wanted to attack that.
The 3/5 compromise is interesting, because it's a tangible reminder, in text of our constitution, that certain races were considered "lesser." But that's just a legal insult. The fact that our country was founded by people that were, for the most part, morally accepting of brutal chattel slavery is the bigger thing. Slavery was the evil, not the legal euphamisms and compromises that surround it.
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
Polonius wrote: but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
gorgon wrote: As I said more succinctly earlier, it draws its rhetorical effectiveness from its lack of specificity.
It isn't just vagueness that matters, it has to be both vague and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote: I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
freedom to do what you want, live how you want, where you want. Everything else is dependent on freedom. People are used to having their freedoms taken away, so no one lives according to "american values" anymore.
When you get down to it, American values boil down to racism, exceptionalism, abusing capitalism, not working, avoiding taxes, drinking, shooting guns and hazing, and patriotism, of course.
Seaward wrote: That's one (incorrect) way of reading it.
You might think it's productive to post vague, three word posts and then complain that other people misunderstood them, but I'm pretty sure it's not.
The only other reading I can see is, well, very unkind and surely not what you meant, so please do expand.
This sentence seems like it's missing words.
The word 'it', it's missing the word 'it'.
"Wow... every time you guys are just little more out there, and I think that must be it, you can't go any further, but somehow you find a way."
Point being, I remember when libertarians were pretty much just people with a really weird notion of rights, who were fun to play with by getting them to argue with each other about whether a person has the right to give up their rights and become a slave. But, well, the 21st century has done strange things to you guys.
sebster wrote: The only other reading I can see is, well, very unkind and surely not what you meant, so please do expand.
The societal change responsible for the stamping out of slavery in the US did not occur "within the mechanisms of government."
Point being, I remember when libertarians were pretty much just people with a really weird notion of rights, who were fun to play with by getting them to argue with each other about whether a person has the right to give up their rights and become a slave. But, well, the 21st century has done strange things to you guys.
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.
But couldn't you argue that the civil war stated due to those "government mechanisms" removing slavery.
sebster wrote: The only other reading I can see is, well, very unkind and surely not what you meant, so please do expand.
The societal change responsible for the stamping out of slavery in the US did not occur "within the mechanisms of government."
Point being, I remember when libertarians were pretty much just people with a really weird notion of rights, who were fun to play with by getting them to argue with each other about whether a person has the right to give up their rights and become a slave. But, well, the 21st century has done strange things to you guys.
No, it hasn't.
Well it did occur within the mechanisms of a government issued Springfield...
Even then the societal change didn't occur within government. Lincoln and his congress all had constituents and approval ratings back home and before Antietam it was 50/50 whether Lincoln would even see a second term in office, and before shortly after that election, Lincoln himself made it explicitly clear that the invasion of the South was NOT about slavery. The will of the people, the tireless efforts of anti-slavery advocates in the north, and finally some Union victories (Antietam providing a relatively minor tactical win because George B. McClellan is one of the greatest pillocks to ever command an army, but a vital strategic win, Forcing Lee to retreat South, and providing Lincoln the "positive press" to keep the people at home on his side, and to shut down whispers of foreign intervention abroad.) and finally a change in Old Abe himself to make the end of slavery the focus of the war.
There is no such thing as a societal change within the mechanisms of government. The people ARE the government, and the people change government to reflect society as best they can. Gays getting the rights to have their marriages and partnerships recognized by the state is not government changing, Blacks being more then 3/5ths of a human being to be kept as livestock is not government changing. It is people changing.
MWHistorian wrote:Two pages and I have yet to see a real answer.
1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.
The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.
Three-fifths.
As pointed out that has not been the case for a not inconsiderable amount of time. But if you're content to relish your role as the pot calling the kettle black - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations
In 1960, First Nations people received the right to vote in federal elections without forfeiting their Indian status. By comparison, Native Americans in the United States had been allowed to vote since the 1920s
1. Statement is made wherein equality under law is claimed to be a traditional value.
2. Poignant and undeniable refutation is made proving the statement in 1 to be false.
3. No true Scotsman and tu quoque from the peanut gallery; both fail to dispel 2.
4. I become tired of -yet again- having to point this out.
1. Statement made wherein equality under law is claimed to be a traditional value (no firm time frame for what constitutes a traditional value)
2. Laughable attempt made to discredit 1. based on outdated information that has since changed and therefore is not relevant, but makes a nice historical curiosity. Comes across as baiting for a reaction because of your pot-kettle-black comment
3. Counter point that Canada must value equality under the law less judging by it's treatment of First Nations people, which is a much more recent example that the 3/5 rule
4.Given that you have pointed out the hypocrisy of others in an attempt to discredit their position I'll let you wear that pot-kettle label with pride
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.
But couldn't you argue that the civil war stated due to those "government mechanisms" removing slavery.
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.
Well, that's true, although the civil war didn't break out to advance social change, but rather to prevent it. Even assuming it was about "state's rights," it was an incredibly reactionary conflict, meant to preserve the pseudo aristocracy of the south, which felt threatened by Northern industrialists. While slavery was the most pressing issue to those interests, this is when stating that the civil war was about slavery is just a bit too simplistic.
The war itself, as a violent conflict, really only settled the question of if state's could secede (apparently not), while also dramatically increasing the scope of the Federal government.
The social change that followed the war (freed slaves, lack of race discrimination in voting, and eventually the Due Process protections of the 14th amendment) all occurred within the structure of government. Amendments were passed in congress, and ratified by states.
What I meant by my comment was that unlike, say, France, we haven't had collapses of government, or mass civil unrest, or barricades in the streets, or the beheadings or government officials in our strive for social justice.
I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.
Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.
So you do in fact know that the 3/5 rule that you brought up is not relevant and you were just trolling, thank you for the clarification
1. Statement made wherein equality under law is claimed to be a traditional value (no firm time frame for what constitutes a traditional value)
2. Laughable attempt made to discredit 1. based on outdated information that has since changed and therefore is not relevant, but makes a nice historical curiosity. Comes across as baiting for a reaction because of your pot-kettle-black comment
3. Counter point that Canada must value equality under the law less judging by it's treatment of First Nations people, which is a much more recent example that the 3/5 rule
4.Given that you have pointed out the hypocrisy of others in an attempt to discredit their position I'll let you wear that pot-kettle label with pride
Well, we're talking about the United States, not Canada. If this were a thread about Traditional Canadian Values, and someone Canadian brought up equality under law in Canada, or if in this thread someone argued moral superiority of Canadians, then yes, you could say it was the pot calling the kettle black, but that's not happening here. He made a valid point, and your response was to attack his nation, despite him never stating moral superiority of Canada. I looked over the thread, and the only person who said anything about Canadian values prior to Azazel's three-fifths post was someone from the US.
The fact that there is no defined time frame for "traditional value" provided makes it tough to argue something is a traditional value. Calling something a "value" (provided it actually meets the definition of value) can work since there is no specific time frame attached, and thus it's meant to be a current value, but when you add the qualifier "traditional," you need a time frame attached, and ideally a uniform definition of "traditional." Different people viewing different timeframes as they relate to "traditional" makes it seem less and less like anything is actually objectively a traditional value, and more that it's a bunch of "values" people have that came into being at different times masquerading as "traditional" for the narrative value that that word adds.
Simply put, equality under law doesn't really meet ANY criteria of "traditional," as it relates to a value of the US.
If traditional means appealing to the Founding Fathers, the counter-point is the 3/5ths Compromise.
If traditional means post Civil War, you could argue the inequality of women and minorities.
If traditional means post Women's suffrage (1930s or so), you could argue minority treatment still resulted in unequal treatment under the law.
If you go to the 50's (as many conservatives love to talk about the 50's), you've still got minority treatment. Also homosexual treatment.
If you go to 1996, when DOMA was put in place, you've got homosexual treatment.
Equality under law is, at best, an "ideal" that we strive towards when it's convenient and feels right.
That isn't to say that our actions weren't wholly lacking in virtue and positive goals. The Constitution, for all it's flaws that we've slowly been fixing, was revolutionary in 1789, and the value of representative government has endured (though campaign funding reform might be needed for that one, we seem to have strayed a bit).
azazel the cat wrote: You can point out exactly where, when and why he's wrong all day and it still won't change. He is consistently one of the most obstinate posters on the forum when it comes to argumentative fallacies; and quite frankly once [he] chimes in like that, you can basically either ignore his post or else spend all of your time just trying to keep him focused while explaining why he is incorrect. Then the circular nuh-uh and tu quoques will begin.
And I just don't have the patience anymore to explain what is already clear to anyone not actively trying to misunderstand. My post stands on its own without further explanation.
Wow, you've just managed to almost perfectly sum up my feelings about you too
If you don't like it you know where the big 'Ignore' button is Enjoy the rest of your day
azazel the cat wrote: There is no value for me to continue here. Anyone who does not intentionally misunderstand can see that my point stands on its own.
Would you agree that something can sincerely be a value even if it is not achieved or even undermined by actual practice?
I omitted your first part of the quote because I shouldn't have taken azzy's obvious baiting given the fact that he knows the 3/5 is ancient (by your US standards) history
DogofWar1 wrote: The fact that there is no defined time frame for "traditional value" provided makes it tough to argue something is a traditional value. Calling something a "value" (provided it actually meets the definition of value) can work since there is no specific time frame attached, and thus it's meant to be a current value, but when you add the qualifier "traditional," you need a time frame attached, and ideally a uniform definition of "traditional." Different people viewing different timeframes as they relate to "traditional" makes it seem less and less like anything is actually objectively a traditional value, and more that it's a bunch of "values" people have that came into being at different times masquerading as "traditional" for the narrative value that that word adds.
Simply put, equality under law doesn't really meet ANY criteria of "traditional," as it relates to a value of the US.
If traditional means appealing to the Founding Fathers, the counter-point is the 3/5ths Compromise.
If traditional means post Civil War, you could argue the inequality of women and minorities.
If traditional means post Women's suffrage (1930s or so), you could argue minority treatment still resulted in unequal treatment under the law.
If you go to the 50's (as many conservatives love to talk about the 50's), you've still got minority treatment. Also homosexual treatment.
If you go to 1996, when DOMA was put in place, you've got homosexual treatment.
Equality under law is, at best, an "ideal" that we strive towards when it's convenient and feels right.
That isn't to say that our actions weren't wholly lacking in virtue and positive goals. The Constitution, for all it's flaws that we've slowly been fixing, was revolutionary in 1789, and the value of representative government has endured (though campaign funding reform might be needed for that one, we seem to have strayed a bit).
Welcome to the point out the thread as outlined by the opening post
Manchu wrote: Would you agree that something can sincerely be a value even if it is not achieved or even undermined by actual practice?
Failing to achieve a value when an earnest attempt to reach said value is made does not result in something not being a value. In addition, there are times when values being limited makes sense. If "Freedom" is a value, there are still boundaries to that freedom. We don't really achieve true freedom, since that would mean no restrictions of any kind. Of course that would also lead to mass lawlessness. We may value privacy, but there are times (reasonable suspicion, probably cause, etc.) where that value is not achieved, but it serves the greater purpose of well being of the people.
However, undermining the value, in the absence of some benefit in excess of the undermining (yelling fire in a theater as a limitation on freedom of speech being a situation where benefits of limits/undermining exceed the costs) through actual practice does detract from it, and I think makes it not a universal value. Some people may hold it as a value, but if we, as a representative democracy, enact and enforce actual practices counter to our "values," without at least some explicit benefit in mind, then I don't think it can be viewed as a national value.
So the short answer to your question is yes, something can be a value despite failure to achieve it and even with some undermining, but we need to examine the manner in which we fail to achieve that value.
I omitted your first part of the quote because I shouldn't have taken azzy's obvious baiting given the fact that he knows the 3/5 is ancient (by your US standards) history
....
Welcome to the point out the thread as outlined by the opening post
I was pointing out that calling the 3/5ths Compromise ancient and therefore immaterial to a debate on traditional values makes no sense when the term "traditional" hasn't been defined. The timeframe where the 3/5ths compromise existed is considered by some to be the timeframe that is referred to when you say "traditional." With that being the case, the 3/5ths compromise becomes very material to the question of whether equality under law is a traditional value, and your saying that mentioning the 3/5ths compromise is trolling is wrong.
Something that is no longer a part of the culture of the land is difficult to consider as traditional, especially when the post that brought up the mention of 3/5 was not framed within the time period that 3/5 was in effect.
Clearly if someone is talking about equality before the law he obviously means a time after 3/5 was no longer in effect.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Something that is no longer a part of the culture of the land is difficult to consider as traditional, especially when the post that brought up the mention of 3/5 was not framed within the time period that 3/5 was in effect.
Clearly if someone is talking about equality before the law he obviously means a time after 3/5 was no longer in effect.
Well I think there are a couple problems there.
1. You seem to be defining "traditional" based on when the values we view as being "traditional values" came into being as "values." That's not how that's supposed to work though, it's sort of backwards. Something being traditional means it adheres to some sort of standard objective definition of traditional. We haven't defined traditional yet. And defining the standard for traditional must be done without regard to specific events in the real world. The poster can talk about how equality under law was a "value" in the post Civil War environment, but that does not necessarily make it "traditional." We have to create an objective definition of "traditional" and "value" and then apply them to values and see if they fit the "traditional value" definition. Right now we're working backwards, saying that equality under law is a traditional value, and that therefore traditional values must be able to come into existence at or near the point where equality under law does.
2. If you're positing that we define "traditional" as occurring after the Civil War, I think that is a viewpoint, but not a uniform or obvious one. I think this is the main issue, you're working from one definition of traditional that results in the value of equality under law as coming into existence after the Civil War, but not everyone takes that view. A lot of people would disagree. I've heard plenty of people appeal to the values of the Founding Fathers as being traditional US values. If that's the case then either A) equality under law was an attempted and failed traditional value, or B) equality under law is not a traditional value since it came into existence as a value after the Founding Fathers were gone. It can still be a value, but not a traditional one under that definition. Hence, why we need to define "traditional."
3. Even if we do accept traditional as being able to occur after the Civil War, then for the issue of equality under law, we still run into serious problems, since we then have to deal with segregation, woman's rights, homosexual rights, etc. Unless June 2013 can be considered "traditional" we run into a problem there since that's when DOMA was still on the books, having been enacted in 1996.
TLDR, defining equality under law as a traditional value doesn't work without an objective definition of "traditional" to work from first, which isn't agreed upon, and even if we did, equality under law still is highly suspicious.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Something that is no longer a part of the culture of the land is difficult to consider as traditional, especially when the post that brought up the mention of 3/5 was not framed within the time period that 3/5 was in effect.
Clearly if someone is talking about equality before the law he obviously means a time after 3/5 was no longer in effect.
Well I think there are a couple problems there.
1. You seem to be defining "traditional" based on when the values we view as being "traditional values" came into being as "values." That's not how that's supposed to work though, it's sort of backwards. Something being traditional means it adheres to some sort of standard objective definition of traditional. We haven't defined traditional yet. And defining the standard for traditional must be done without regard to specific events in the real world. The poster can talk about how equality under law was a "value" in the post Civil War environment, but that does not necessarily make it "traditional." We have to create an objective definition of "traditional" and "value" and then apply them to values and see if they fit the "traditional value" definition. Right now we're working backwards, saying that equality under law is a traditional value, and that therefore traditional values must be able to come into existence at or near the point where equality under law does.
2. If you're positing that we define "traditional" as occurring after the Civil War, I think that is a viewpoint, but not a uniform or obvious one. I think this is the main issue, you're working from one definition of traditional that results in the value of equality under law as coming into existence after the Civil War, but not everyone takes that view. A lot of people would disagree. I've heard plenty of people appeal to the values of the Founding Fathers as being traditional US values. If that's the case then either A) equality under law was an attempted and failed traditional value, or B) equality under law is not a traditional value since it came into existence as a value after the Founding Fathers were gone. It can still be a value, but not a traditional one under that definition. Hence, why we need to define "traditional."
3. Even if we do accept traditional as being able to occur after the Civil War, then for the issue of equality under law, we still run into serious problems, since we then have to deal with segregation, woman's rights, homosexual rights, etc. Unless June 2013 can be considered "traditional" we run into a problem there since that's when DOMA was still on the books, having been enacted in 1996.
TLDR, defining equality under law as a traditional value doesn't work without an objective definition of "traditional" to work from first, which isn't agreed upon, and even if we did, equality under law still is highly suspicious.
I eagerly await your definition of traditional, and what time frame you believe it encompasses. I'll settle for a custom, belief, or value that has been passed down from generation to generation, or something that is long established.
"Failing to achieve a value when an earnest attempt to reach said value is made does not result in something not being a value".
The US, and many other Western democracies, have long placed value on equality before the law. Just because it is a value that is still being worked towards, and it's implementation shaped by the prevailing legal, political, and social attitudes of the time, does not reduce it's importance as a value.
Dreadclaw69 wrote:I eagerly await your definition of traditional, and what time frame you believe it encompasses. I'll settle for a custom, belief, or value that has been passed down from generation to generation, or something that is long established.
Is your operating definition of "traditional values", then, restricted to only those values which fit your description, and are still predominant amongst the majority to this day?
Because the civil rights movement took 188 years, and even then it took longer to see it in practice after that, and the majority of states still do not recognize gay marriage.
I eagerly await your definition of traditional, and what time frame you believe it encompasses. I'll settle for a custom, belief, or value that has been passed down from generation to generation, or something that is long established.
The standard definition of traditional is (pulled from google):
- existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established.
How long traditional is depends upon the specific circumstances. For example, a family might have an Easter Egg hunt at an Aunt's house five years in a row, and call it "traditional," while the Catholic Church has rules and laws that don't really become "traditional" until hundreds of years have passed.
In the current situation, we are looking at tradition through the lens of the United States. From a national perspective, it must be widely accepted by the population, at least, say 60% or so (a super-majority/a large enough portion of the country that the minority can not, on its own, end the tradition).
So what I would say is traditional, is something that is practiced by at least 60% of the population. In addition, for nations, chronologically, and for "values" I am inclined to argue for something that has existed across generations of political parties, that is, something that has remained constant despite major political overhauls. And by that I don't mean when the parties switch in terms of who's in control, but rather, I mean when parties that did not exist came into existence and overtook standing parties, etc. This is useful because the US is a representative democracy, and thus the values of the elected, which are codified by the legislature, and enforced by the President, should be fairly close to that of the people.
Looking at the history of political parties in the United States our political parties have been pretty much the same since the mid-1800s, but we can include the overhaul and shake up of the parties that occurred in the 60's (dixiecrats leaving the Democratic party, shakeup of the map over a very short period of time) as a major shift in the parties I suppose.
Based on that, going back 2-3 generations of parties, the minimum I would say is necessary for "traditional" to be in effect, we end up, at the latest, in the early 1850s, specifically 1852 or 1856, that being the last election the Whig party had a major presence in the US Congress. If we wanted to go back a further generation, we'd have to go back to 1832, when the National Republican party was a major party.
So in terms of "traditional US values" I would argue that it is a value that has existed since, at the very least, 1856, as a value that was held by a supermajority of the nation when the Whig and Democratic (of the 1800s) parties were the major parties in existence. That would be my personal stance on the issue at this time.
"Failing to achieve a value when an earnest attempt to reach said value is made does not result in something not being a value".
The US, and many other Western democracies, have long placed value on equality before the law. Just because it is a value that is still being worked towards, and it's implementation shaped by the prevailing legal, political, and social attitudes of the time, does not reduce it's importance as a value.
You seem to have "selective paragraph post reading syndrome." I went on to explain that the manner in which a value is failed to be achieved is important, specifically that acting in a manner that is obviously counter to the "value" clearly shows that the "value" is not valued enough by the nation to actually consider it a "value." The wording you cited even involves that, when I said "earnest attempt."
The US has failed at many points in its history to make an earnest attempt at making equality under law a value. I listed the examples on a post further up the page.
- Slavery/African Americans (failure to achieve true equality under law until the civil rights movement in the 60's)
- Women (suffrage in the 1920's)
- Homosexuals (if we assume they've achieved equality under law with the declaring of certain facets of DOMA unconstitutional, then June 2013)
- Asians (Japanese internment camps during WWII)
Heck, we might be able to throw the detainment policies of citizens under the Patriot act in there.
We place "value" on equality under law in a rhetorical manner, that is, it makes for a nice narrative that people like. In terms of actual practice, we placed very little importance on actually achieving equality under law, and have taken active actions in opposition to that value many times throughout our history. My point in my response to Manchu was that It's less about omission by accident, and more about purposeful omission, as well as action in opposition.
If I say I am a vegan, but I always eat a 12 oz. steak once or twice a week, in a planned manner, I don't think many people would agree that I am a vegan. Similarly, if the US says equality under law is a value, but we find segregation legal and sustain it through the 50's, put Japanese in internment camps, deny women the vote, and then deny homosexuals equal protection under the law with DOMA, I'd say it's tough to call equality under law a value, or at least one we've valued as a nation over time.
I think there needs to be a Webster's law (much like godwin's), in that when people start citing dictionary definitions, the debate is now about the nature of the debate, and not the topic.
Polonius wrote:I think there needs to be a Webster's law (much like godwin's), in that when people start citing dictionary definitions, the debate is now about the nature of the debate, and not the topic.
Unfotunately, it is a necessary requisite for many debates, as people often make up their own definitions for key terms of the debate; akin to saying you've hit a grand slam in baseball because you hit the ball so damned hard, irrespective or whether or not the bases were loaded.
The case in point here is that Dreadclaw's own definition of what constitutes being "traditional" seems to change in accordance with whatever he wants it to mean, and then changes again when his own definition undercuts his argument.
Polonius wrote:I think there needs to be a Webster's law (much like godwin's), in that when people start citing dictionary definitions, the debate is now about the nature of the debate, and not the topic.
Unfotunately, it is a necessary requisite for many debates, as people often make up their own definitions for key terms of the debate; akin to saying you've hit a grand slam in baseball because you hit the ball so damned hard, irrespective or whether or not the bases were loaded.
The case in point here is that Dreadclaw's own definition of what constitutes being "traditional" seems to change in accordance with whatever he wants it to mean, and then changes again when his own definition undercuts his argument.
LIke I said, you're arguing, not about the merits of his point, but on the way in which he is arguing it. It is a snack consuming itself.
LIke I said, you're arguing, not about the merits of his point, but on the way in which he is arguing it. It is a snack consuming itself.
Webster's Law!
When I was on debate team, the first thing you did at the start of every debate was define the terms that were being used. If the resolution was "Giving everyone a puppy promotes justice," you would have needed to define what is "justice," and also potentially what "give," "everyone," "puppy," and "promotes," mean. But definitely justice. If you don't define the terms and parameters of the debate, you end up in a situation where you can easily be arguing past each other, or where a person can move the goalposts because they've failed to anchor themselves to one specific definition.
Webster's Law or not, it's simply good debate policy to have defined terms and parameters. It is very difficult to debate the merits of someone's points in relation to a topic when the topic itself is not defined.
LIke I said, you're arguing, not about the merits of his point, but on the way in which he is arguing it. It is a snack consuming itself.
Webster's Law!
When I was on debate team, the first thing you did at the start of every debate was define the terms that were being used. If the resolution was "Giving everyone a puppy promotes justice," you would have needed to define what is "justice," and also potentially what "give," "everyone," "puppy," and "promotes," mean. But definitely justice. If you don't define the terms and parameters of the debate, you end up in a situation where you can easily be arguing past each other, or where a person can move the goalposts because they've failed to anchor themselves to one specific definition.
Webster's Law or not, it's simply good debate policy to have defined terms and parameters.
I agree, but that's not what I'm talking about. Saying what you mean and defining your terms is the core of good communication. That's not what Webster's law touches: it touches using definitions to argue, not for your point, but that what somebody else said was wrong.
I doubt you'll find many canadians born after 1950 who do not entirely agree that our ancestors have been monstrous dicks to the aboriginal people.
If they hadn't done what they did Canada wouldn't exist. If you're that upset over it, give half your possessions/wealth to the local tribe and start over. More than half if you feel the need.
Lol no. Colonies could have easily been founded without wiping out the aboriginal populations. And even if there would likely always have been frictions and probably violence, we didn't need to be dicks in such a horribly dickish way. We've had State sponsored kidnapping and sequestration of natives up until 50 years ago. And our government still can't grow the balls to say they are sorry about it.
I can find that horrible and yet see that I, myself, had no part in it. My parents had no part in it. I know my family history well enough to know where we stood, and that was beside the Aboriginal and the Metis people. Co-habitation was more than possible, it was happening for quite a while, until the Brits decided 'lol, dirty indians, get off our lawns' and started burning houses.
If you are referring to the state sponsored catholic boarding schools (I can not remember what they are called), the Canadian Government (Stephen Harper) has apologized for them and is paying restitution to the victims surviving family members.
gorgon wrote: As I said more succinctly earlier, it draws its rhetorical effectiveness from its lack of specificity.
It isn't just vagueness that matters, it has to be both vague and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener.
Note that I didn't use the word "vague."
Distinction without difference.
"It isn't just a lack of specificity that matters, it has to both lack specifics and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener."
Polonius wrote:I think there needs to be a Webster's law (much like godwin's), in that when people start citing dictionary definitions, the debate is now about the nature of the debate, and not the topic.
Unfotunately, it is a necessary requisite for many debates, as people often make up their own definitions for key terms of the debate; akin to saying you've hit a grand slam in baseball because you hit the ball so damned hard, irrespective or whether or not the bases were loaded.
The case in point here is that Dreadclaw's own definition of what constitutes being "traditional" seems to change in accordance with whatever he wants it to mean, and then changes again when his own definition undercuts his argument.
LIke I said, you're arguing, not about the merits of his point, but on the way in which he is arguing it. It is a snack consuming itself.
Webster's Law!
I obliterated his point several posts back. Now I'm just pointing out that the reason why it happened was because his point was built on pillars of sand.
gorgon wrote: As I said more succinctly earlier, it draws its rhetorical effectiveness from its lack of specificity.
It isn't just vagueness that matters, it has to be both vague and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener.
Note that I didn't use the word "vague."
Distinction without difference.
"It isn't just a lack of specificity that matters, it has to both lack specifics and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener."
If that's your only point, then it's an unnecessary clarification.
) has a soul patch. Thats the mark of a godless tree hugger (aka Johnson) and has no place in the great nation of ours. 
