Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Guitardian wrote:Well that's YOUR house Frazz... most folks just get a sticker on the window that says 'neighborhood watch'.

I prefer
'Neighborhood watched...by Darth Vader'

Guitardian wrote:feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor. The ones who don't sit in cushy offices and actually have to WORK while they are at work, and live from one paycheck to the next.

You obviously need to study more about the middle class. The MC often lives pay check to pay check. And cushy offices? My dad's middle class, and his cushy office was a tent in the middle of Afghanistan with mortars coming down around his battalion.

Not everyone in the MC works in an office nor does everyone in the MC have a cushy job. You're complaining about 40 hours a week? One of my uncles works 50. Two others work 24/7. One of my aunts is a nurse and works from 11 PM to 7 AM all days of the week. My mom is a teacher and she works from 5 AM to 6 PM. My dad has been deployed almost a dozen times in the past decade. My mom and dad are well off because his deployments exempt him from income tax. The rest of my family however does not live as easily as we do, and I have doctors and nurses in my family. These jobs may not be the hard manual labor of construction, but they aren't the walks through a park you seem to think they are. EDIT: THe lack of physical stress is easily matched by the increase in mental stress, not that there isn't any physical stress.

Sweeping generalizations are made about the lower class all the time, and I get that that upsets you, but don't make sweeping generalizations about the MC in return. When you don't want people to be insulting, it helps not to insult them back. The MC isn't the power house it used to be. It's been getting weaker and weaker for decades.

Frazzled wrote:
To the point. Taken to their logical conclusion both socialism and fascism are kissing cousins. At the end of the day they are still dictatorial governments telling the average person what to. Whether its what type of food they can or can't have, it doesn't matter if the guy telling you is wearing a brown shirt or a red shirt. he's still telling you what to do and using government power to make you do it.

That's the purpose of all governments. The question isn't whether or not the state is telling its people what to do, the question is "What is the state telling its people to do?"

Frazzled wrote:
What mythical state is this? The state owns the preprty. The "people" only have a small use of it. Wage slavery is abolished? So you haven't actually studied any communist states then. Everything is now clear.

That is what ideological communism is about, its simply not something that's realistically achievable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
well I think that if you let people do whatever comes naturally they'll degenerate.... so over the long term a society that does this, that has too much freedom, wont perpetuate itself. it will implode. its not really practical right now bc theres no agreement on what morality is, which is really too bad....

I don't think there has ever been significant agreement regarding what is, and is not moral behavior. The difference has simply been about the degree to which people were willing to enforce their standards of morality on others.

And, incidentally, I'm not saying that individual members of society have to tolerate behavior that they feel is immoral. I'm saying that there are limits on what should be acceptable regarding the intolerance of seemingly immoral behavior, and that those limits are basically defined by what constitues a legitimate excuse for legislation.

Kragura wrote:no matter how basic and accepted the step is it is still a step towards socialism.

But it's also a step towards a dozen other systems, and was taken not, primarily, because people wanted to arrive at socialism but because they wanted to arrive at one of those systems instead.

Once again, a person can say they think the government should build roads, and I could say "no matter how basic and accepted the state building roads is, it is still a step towards fascism". And while it may not technically be false when taken literally, it barely means anything in this sense, and it is generally said to imply things that are false (the roads are built by supporters of fascism, the construction of the roads will lead us to fascism, etc).

dogma wrote:

That is what ideological communism is about, its simply not something that's realistically achievable.

Point taken D. I'm coming from the position of "real world" communism for lack of a better term, as most political systems are utopic on an ideological basis. Where the rubber meets the road is something else entirely (for all of them).

LordofHats wrote:

Guitardian wrote:feth the middle class. The REAL workers are the poor. The ones who don't sit in cushy offices and actually have to WORK while they are at work, and live from one paycheck to the next.

You obviously need to study more about the middle class. The MC often lives pay check to pay check. And cushy offices? My dad's middle class, and his cushy office was a tent in the middle of Afghanistan with mortars coming down around his battalion.

Not everyone in the MC works in an office nor does everyone in the MC have a cushy job. You're complaining about 40 hours a week? One of my uncles works 50. Two others work 24/7. One of my aunts is a nurse and works from 11 PM to 7 AM all days of the week. My mom is a teacher and she works from 5 AM to 6 PM. My dad has been deployed almost a dozen times in the past decade. My mom and dad are well off because his deployments exempt him from income tax. The rest of my family however does not live as easily as we do, and I have doctors and nurses in my family. These jobs may not be the hard manual labor of construction, but they aren't the walks through a park you seem to think they are. EDIT: THe lack of physical stress is easily matched by the increase in mental stress, not that there isn't any physical stress.

Sweeping generalizations are made about the lower class all the time, and I get that that upsets you, but don't make sweeping generalizations about the MC in return. When you don't want people to be insulting, it helps not to insult them back. The MC isn't the power house it used to be. It's been getting weaker and weaker for decades.

Indeed. Sweeping generalizations is exactly what I was upset about, so responded in kind. Glad you pointed it out. To tell you the truth, all sarcasm aside I don't even know how to define 'middle class' any more. It may have something to do with having a stable job and a house and a car and some wife and some kids.There's this illusionary word used here to define how regular well adjusted members of society ideally live. It doesn't really exist, the term is just a political tool. We all know what 'upper class' is. It involves expensive dining, very nice cars, jet setting, and otherwise spending on luxuries rather than necessities. Where do you draw the line between middle and lower 'class' though? Middle class is just lower class in denial? At least us poor people know we're poor and don't try to pretend we aren't. But not all poor people are bums, some are just humble and hard working and happy enough just to have a job, feel no need to climb the ladder.

Dogma
I think there's been pretty broad consensus on what was moral and what was not in the past.... at least broader than there is now. Mb that consensus was wrong, mb not, but it was real... The only standard our legal system seems to recognize now is immediate harm to individuals - long term harm to the community is no longer considered a valid grounds to discourage certain kinds of action. In that sense imo we've departed from the good standards of the past. AF

There has only been a consensus in the past in the sense that we allow nostalgia to black out the realities of the past. There were times, like the 50's, where people put a facade on the disagreements but if you scratched the surface they come flooding out. The 'good standards of the past' tend to be a lie wrapped in nostalgia.

Yeah I miss 'colored' drinking fountains too. (sigh) everyone was so much better those days... By the way it's still okay to be a racist if you are over 65.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Dogma
I think there's been pretty broad consensus on what was moral and what was not in the past.... at least broader than there is now. Mb that consensus was wrong, mb not, but it was real... The only standard our legal system seems to recognize now is immediate harm to individuals - long term harm to the community is no longer considered a valid grounds to discourage certain kinds of action. In that sense imo we've departed from the good standards of the past. AF

Like Ahtman, I see that sort of thinking as the result of nostalgia.

Going beyond contemporary history, I can think of a number of examples that illustrate the lack of moral consensus:

The temperance movement.

The abolitionist movement.

The isolationist movement.

Ahtman wrote:There has only been a consensus in the past in the sense that we allow nostalgia to black out the realities of the past. There were times, like the 50's, where people put a facade on the disagreements but if you scratched the surface they come flooding out. The 'good standards of the past' tend to be a lie wrapped in nostalgia.

there always were and always have been conflicts.
what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.
I'm not arguing for the merits of the morality itself. what I'm saying is that a moral consensus is in itself valuable.
Better to have a consensus on bad morals than no consensus at all. AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Dogma
I think there's been pretty broad consensus on what was moral and what was not in the past.... at least broader than there is now. Mb that consensus was wrong, mb not, but it was real... The only standard our legal system seems to recognize now is immediate harm to individuals - long term harm to the community is no longer considered a valid grounds to discourage certain kinds of action. In that sense imo we've departed from the good standards of the past. AF

Like Ahtman, I see that sort of thinking as the result of nostalgia.

Going beyond contemporary history, I can think of a number of examples that illustrate the lack of moral consensus:

The temperance movement.

The abolitionist movement.

The isolationist movement.

temperance.... I think there was a pretty broad agreement that alcohol consumption was not moral. At least, in the 19th century, among native born protestants. Temperance started as a way to attack the German and Irish immigrants - it was part of a larger anti-foreigner campaign. Within the native born US population I dont think it was especially controversial. Everyone knows that alcohol consumption can lead a person to do stupid (I dare say immoral) things. I dont really see this as an area of moral disagreement.

abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

isolationism.... is not a moral issue... its a political one.

Its possible that desiring a moral consensus is nostalgic.... but societies and people do in fact change, and not always for the better. Any assertion that the past was better in certain respects could potentially be dismissed as nostalgia - but that would be to miss the larger point here.... that a broad consensus on values across a society is valuable for its own sake.... and that morality is not a private business. Its a public business because we do not live in isolation - we live in groups. If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.
AF

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.

And I am saying it is a load of hooey.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.

There is a lot of in this thread.

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.

And I am saying it is a load of hooey.

witty. elegant. exact. irrefutable. not only do you smash all opposing arguments, you do it with style.

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.

ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its possible that desiring a moral consensus is nostalgic.... but societies and people do in fact change, and not always for the better. Any assertion that the past was better in certain respects could potentially be dismissed as nostalgia - but that would be to miss the larger point here.... that a broad consensus on values across a society is valuable for its own sake.... and that morality is not a private business. Its a public business because we do not live in isolation - we live in groups. If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.

Isn't the whole basis of democracy that the democratic system reflects the consensus on what the government's actions should be? The conclusion I'm getting from your post is that the majority should disable the ability of the minority to vote all, because they aren't a part of "the consensus". However, this would quickly lead to a tiny oligarchy determining moral consensus, as a new, narrower "consensus" would come into being after each purge, and justify subsequent purges. In fact, even if those outside of "the consensus" voluntarily gave up political influence (permanently), it would have the same effect. If they only gave up political power until they became the majority once again, then you just have majoritarian democracy, and there's no reason in further excluding them from the system. In short, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're advocating, but it doesn't sound like a good idea from here. Could you give some examples of what you would consider the problems with the lack of moral consensus to be, how they need to be solved, and so forth?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.

ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....

"Was" is a verb in the Past Progressive tense, IIRC. Or past perfect progressive.

Hey, it's been a while.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:Its possible that desiring a moral consensus is nostalgic.... but societies and people do in fact change, and not always for the better. Any assertion that the past was better in certain respects could potentially be dismissed as nostalgia - but that would be to miss the larger point here.... that a broad consensus on values across a society is valuable for its own sake.... and that morality is not a private business. Its a public business because we do not live in isolation - we live in groups. If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.

Isn't the whole basis of democracy that the democratic system reflects the consensus on what the government's actions should be? The conclusion I'm getting from your post is that the majority should disable the ability of the minority to vote all, because they aren't a part of "the consensus". However, this would quickly lead to a tiny oligarchy determining moral consensus, as a new, narrower "consensus" would come into being after each purge, and justify subsequent purges. In fact, even if those outside of "the consensus" voluntarily gave up political influence (permanently), it would have the same effect. If they only gave up political power until they became the majority once again, then you just have majoritarian democracy, and there's no reason in further excluding them from the system. In short, I'm not exactly sure what it is you're advocating, but it doesn't sound like a good idea from here. Could you give some examples of what you would consider the problems with the lack of moral consensus to be, how they need to be solved, and so forth?

If moral principles were determined on a weekly or a yearly basis, yes, it would lead to the gradual disqualification of almost everyone in the system. Moral principles should, and generally are, established on a much more long term basis; as long as the standards dont change, or change only very slowly over the course of a persons life, I dont think the progressive purges that your talking about would be applicable....

sure, I can give an example. alcoholism. If my neighbor chooses to drink himself stupid every night, hey, its his life. As long as he's not hurting me, what do I care? If that alcoholic votes......... I have a big problem with that. It introduces an irresponsible person with an unrealistic set of expectations into the voting public; it also creates an incentive for a politician to pander to him. Maybe my neighbor isnt fit to work anymore because he cant stop drinking. so he loses his job. so he votes to tax me to provide him with relief. John Doe senator needs that vote, so now you have an ugly alliance between a drunk and a crooked politician.

This situation isnt really that hard to imagine..... I do in fact have a neighbor who collects food stamps from the government yet still finds money to drink a gallon of beer every night. If she had to buy her own food she couldnt spend all that money on beer. She's wasting the community's money to fund her irresponsible activities - and you can bet that if it ever comes to a vote, whether to extend or to restrict eligibility for the food stamp program, she'll vote to extend it. Its in my interest and in your interest to keep that person from voting, because she's a degenerate, and when degenerates vote its bad for..... everyone.

alot of people agree that alcoholism is bad, but getting people to agree that alcoholics shouldnt be able to vote seems to be alot harder for some reason.....

as far as things that there is no moral consensus on... or where that consensus once existed but has broken down...... I'd say the lack of consensus on abortion is a pretty big problem. It diverts alot of peoples energy and occasionally gets someone killed/incarcerated for life. Other examples..... divorce. most people will say they disapprove of it but if you judge by the actions of the american public Id say theres some pretty substantial disagreement over it. If we could all agree one way or another - to either marry for life and ing mean it, or dont get married at all and just do what you want, that would be kind of nice....
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.

ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....

"Was" is a verb in the Past Progressive tense, IIRC. Or past perfect progressive.

Hey, it's been a while.

ummm... yeah I guess you're right. It's still missing something though.
It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included
good so far
[in his] attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.
there. fixed it.

He's still wrong
the consensus among enlightenment thinkers (jefferson's group) was that slavery was wrong. What Dogma was talking about, and which Ahtman responded to, didnt happen until much later. There was a consensus in both cases. Most people thought slavery was wrong in jeffersons day. most people didnt care one way or another about it in the day of abolitionists. At least in the north. In the south they thought it was a good thing. whatever. Its really more a political than a moral issue in my opinion. But I think the example strengthens my case since, if you look at it as a break down of moral consensus, then what happened afterwards - the american civil war - argues pretty strongly that you want to preserve that consensus, not let it break down.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:If moral principles were determined on a weekly or a yearly basis, yes, it would lead to the gradual disqualification of almost everyone in the system. Moral principles should, and generally are, established on a much more long term basis; as long as the standards dont change, or change only very slowly over the course of a persons life, I dont think the progressive purges that your talking about would be applicable....

My idea wasn't based on moral opinions changing, necessarily, just the moral opinions that people have always had coming to the surface as the group becomes more and more homogeneous. For instance, say that 25% of the population thinks that homosexuality and premarital sex are both fine, 35% of the population thinks that homosexuality is immoral but premarital sex is still okay, and 40% of the population thinks that both immoral. The simple majoritarian solution would be to ban homosexuality (thought immoral by 75%) and to allow premarital sex (thought moral by 60%). However, what may well happen when they have the ability to further eliminate each other from the political process is that homosexuality, being the bigger issue for both the later two groups, will come to the forefront of the political arena. It will be decided that the moral consensus is that homosexuality should be prohibited, and that those who support it should be excluded from the political process from that point on. Then, with the bigger issue decided, people will inevitably begin debating issues that they see as less important (but still important enough to bring to the table), such as premarital sex. In this case only the last two groups will be able to decide what the moral consensus is on this, and so premarital sex will be banned as well.

Or, to quote an old joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said “Stop! Don’t do it!”
“Why shouldn’t I?” he said.
I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”
“Like what?”
“Well … are you religious or atheist?”
“Religious.”
“Me too! Are you Christian or Jewish?”
“Christian.”
“Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?”
“Protestant.”
“Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?”
“Baptist.”
“Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?”
“Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too! Are you Original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God.”
“Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?”
“Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!”
To which I said, “Then die, heretic scum!” and pushed him off.

sure, I can give an example. alcoholism. If my neighbor chooses to drink himself stupid every night, hey, its his life. As long as he's not hurting me, what do I care? If that alcoholic votes......... I have a big problem with that. It introduces an irresponsible person with an unrealistic set of expectations into the voting public; it also creates an incentive for a politician to pander to him. Maybe my neighbor isnt fit to work anymore because he cant stop drinking. so he loses his job. so he votes to tax me to provide him with relief. John Doe senator needs that vote, so now you have an ugly alliance between a drunk and a crooked politician.

This situation isnt really that hard to imagine..... I do in fact have a neighbor who collects food stamps from the government yet still finds money to drink a gallon of beer every night. If she had to buy her own food she couldnt spend all that money on beer. She's wasting the community's money to fund her irresponsible activities - and you can bet that if it ever comes to a vote, whether to extend or to restrict eligibility for the food stamp program, she'll vote to extend it. Its in my interest and in your interest to keep that person from voting, because she's a degenerate, and when degenerates vote its bad for..... everyone.

Alright, I do think that this is a legitimate complaint. However, I don't see how taking the right to vote away would be a workable solution to it. Even putting aside the moral arms race I mentioned above, how exactly is the state supposed to go about determining whether or not the electorate is moral enough to vote? Will some sort of court system be set up for it? Will there be some sort of tribunal, where your neighbors testify against you? Will suffrage be denied by default, and only people who prove themselves in some manner will be granted it (a la Starship Troopers)? Will these immoral people be denied other methods of political influence, such as the ability to write on the topic, or assemble? How can legislation, much less the constitutional amendment it would require to be put into place, be attained if you can't even stop drunks from taking your money?

I don't mean to sound overly harsh, because I agree with a lot of the point you're trying to make. However, the idea of denying suffrage to people based on their immorality just doesn't seem sensible; not even a little bit, really. It seems like you may as well skip out on democracy entirely and just instill a philosopher-king, if nothing else it would save you a trip to the poll booth.

Hmm. Here are two more things to think about. The first is this; you are of the opinion, from what I can tell, that the need for a moral consensus is based on the political implications of immorality. However, I have heard people frequently express distinctions that they themselves make between what they would call "morality" - their personal sense of morals - and what they think the government needs to do in a specific issue. For instance, there some people who think that sodomy or burning the flag is wrong, "morally", but nonetheless that the government has no right to prohibit this from being done. If there was a bitter divide on the personal morals of flag burning, but a general consensus on the political nature of the issue, then you wouldn't have a conflict. And similarly, you would have a conflict if personal morals were in general consensus but political/ideological consensus had not been reached. Thus, what you really desire would seem to be a form of ideological consensus, with moral consensus only useful insofar as it can lead to the former. Now, perhaps you define the term "moral" in so broad of a function as to include the ideological view points I'm talking about (I often do), in which case I would instead say that, perhaps, the divisions is nonetheless an important one to make.

The second thing to think about is that there pretty much is an ideological consensus regarding the taxation of hardworking people to give to the lazy or self-absorbed (i.e. that it shouldn't be done). Similarly, alcoholism is - pretty much be definition - a bad thing, and I think you could say pretty safely that this is a matter of moral consensus in any case. So then we would appear to have another problem; the current form of our democracy doesn't necessarily hold politicians close to the viewpoints of the constituency. After all, you rarely have many realistic choices in an election, and it's pretty widely recognised that small, strong interests usually overpower large, weak interests, regardless of the fact that the later is often what one may call the moral consensus.

Oops, a third thing: is it possible for the moral consensus of a society to merely be that further moral consensus is unimportant? If so, should it be respected?

i'm an alcoholic. I still feel that my occasionally beered-up wisdom is better and more well thought out than some of my sober peers. Maybe we should just not allow stupid feths to vote? It doesn't have to be a drug that makes you a dumbass. Some people just are, and I can still beat em at chess when I'm wasted. If your alcoholic neighbor having a right to make decisions bothers you, then you hang out with the wrong alcoholics. I caaan aallsoo typpe wheen Im drunk...

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what I'm saying is that the consensus about what is morally acceptable - in an individuals life - has broken down.

And I am saying it is a load of hooey.

witty. elegant. exact. irrefutable. not only do you smash all opposing arguments, you do it with style.

I gave your argument the respect it deserved. At least I was on topic and not strawmanning my way into a tangent on grammar. In a formal written argument it may be out of place to phrase a sentence in such a manner, but in an informal setting such as this, and with sarcasm being such a large element, there is nothing wrong with it. In the end what we learned is that you had no real response so you nitpicked. It isn't an uncommon tactic.

Guitardian wrote:i'm an alcoholic. I still feel that my occasionally beered-up wisdom is better and more well thought out than some of my sober peers.

Yeah, most drunks do.

Maybe we should just not allow stupid feths to vote?

Yeah democracy sucks.




*Edit

That was sorta douchey. Sorry man.


*Edit again.

Apology withdrawn. I'm in a douchey mood.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Guitardian wrote:i'm an alcoholic. I still feel that my occasionally beered-up wisdom is better and more well thought out than some of my sober peers.

Yeah, most drunks do.

It's also my understanding that they drive better when drunk.

accident post. Sorry.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
temperance.... I think there was a pretty broad agreement that alcohol consumption was not moral. At least, in the 19th century, among native born protestants.

Well, I don't agree with your first statement. As I understand it the period during which the temperance movement reached it height featured two dominant ideological positions:

1. Alcohol is evil.

2. Meh.

The thing about indifference is that it doesn't tend to lead people out into the streets, and really that's about the same response regarding people that assent to a current policy. Counter-protests almost never have the same sort of force that straight up protests do.

Still, disregarding our differing understandings of history, we're still left with that last piece of your sentence, which clearly describes the problem with determining consensus. Even if all native born protestants thought drinking was bad, the population of the United States was not limited to native born protestants; meaning that fact doesn't establish general consensus across the whole of society.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Within the native born US population I dont think it was especially controversial. Everyone knows that alcohol consumption can lead a person to do stupid (I dare say immoral) things. I dont really see this as an area of moral disagreement.

Of course you don't, you've already admitted something very close to tacit agreement with the idea.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

I don't really want to get into a debate about history, so it will suffice to say that I disagree with the idea that abolitionists were insignificant outside New England. Moreover, even if they were, it doesn't really matter. The abolitionist movement was a significant moral disagreement at some point in American history, and a major contributor to the American Civil War. That fact alone indicates that moral consensus didn't exist.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
isolationism.... is not a moral issue... its a political one.

Its also a moral issue regarding the proper role of the government in society, and the larger world. Notably, American international politics always tend to take on moral issues; as the isolationist reaction to Wilsonianism (another morally driven sort of foreign policy) illustrates.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
If someone doesnt want to have their actions scrutinized by the community I'm ok with that - as long as they aren't voting. I mean if they want to voluntarily disenfranchise themselves I dont care what they do. But if you want good government you cant let bad people write the laws. You cant let them vote.

This is going to be a fundamental point of disagreement for us. I accept that voters have the rights to control who rights their laws through representation, but the idea of determining the franchise according to informal moral codes strikes me as nothing more than theocratic governance. And that's something that I find to be abhorrent.

rubiksnoob wrote:Apology withdrawn. I'm in a douchey mood.

I think it's just one of those days.

Ahtman wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:Apology withdrawn. I'm in a douchey mood.

I think it's just one of those days.

tis.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.

ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....

There are actually two verbs, which makes sense given that its a compound sentence.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Guitardian wrote:i'm an alcoholic. I still feel that my occasionally beered-up wisdom is better and more well thought out than some of my sober peers.

Yeah, most drunks do.

Maybe we should just not allow stupid feths to vote?

Yeah democracy sucks.




*Edit

That was sorta douchey. Sorry man.


*Edit again.

Apology withdrawn. I'm in a douchey mood.

douche all you need to man. While you're at it try a wine enima.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:abolitionism.... the overwhelming position of Americans prior to the American civil war where slavery was concerned was that it didnt matter one way or the other. Abolitionists were agitators. Pretty much ignored outside of New England. I think there was a consensus here too.

It was such a consensus that Thomas Jefferson (a Southern Slave owner) included an attack on slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence.

ummmmm.... your sentence needs a verb.....

There are actually two verbs, which makes sense given that its a compound sentence.

Gads! I missed that!

Thankfully I'm taking English next semester.

I had noticed "included", but not "was", myself.