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.

 cincydooley wrote:

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.

 cincydooley wrote:

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.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

Now who's calling the kettle black?

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)

I'm pretty sure traditional american values at least tangentially involve wearing boots, and pulling yourself up by the straps thereof.

Honestly, I got different answers from everyone I asked while I was in America.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

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.

 Kain wrote:
Honestly, I got different answers from everyone I asked while I was in America.

And that is the most traditionally American value of all; uniquely ours as a nation of immigrants.

 Ouze wrote:
uniquely ours as a nation of immigrants.

How are you the only nation which was made up of immigrants? Aren't a lot of nations made up that way? Or at least a few.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Honestly, I got different answers from everyone I asked while I was in America.

And that is the most traditionally American value of all; uniquely ours as a nation of immigrants.

Plenty of other countries are made primarily out of immigrants due to the natives being quite dead.

Like the rest of the continent.

 Kain wrote:
Plenty of other countries are made primarily out of immigrants due to the natives being quite dead.

Man, did I walk into that one.

Gay Pride, Mardis Gras and Vegas.

The three cornerstones that immediately come to mind whenever I think of America.

 Ouze wrote:

 Kain wrote:
Honestly, I got different answers from everyone I asked while I was in America.

And that is the most traditionally American value of all; uniquely ours as a nation of immigrants.

Uh, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 scarletsquig wrote:
Gay Pride, Mardis Gras and Vegas.

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.

As I said more succinctly earlier, it draws its rhetorical effectiveness from its lack of specificity.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

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.

 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.

I think I found a new tattoo.

 whitedragon wrote:

 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.

I think I found a new tattoo.

Have fun.

 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.

Holy gak, no.

 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.

That was a wonderful post, thanks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Holy gak, no.

So you guys are now at the point where you can't even grant government credit for changes to government.

Wow... every time you guys are just little more out there, and I think that must be, you can't go any further, but somehow you find a way.

 sebster wrote:
So you guys are now at the point where you can't even grant government credit for changes to government.

That's one (incorrect) way of reading it.

Wow... every time you guys are just little more out there, and I think that must be, you can't go any further, but somehow you find a way.

This sentence seems like it's missing words.

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.

drinking and shooting guns WHILE hazing people. Woo!

 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.

No, it hasn't.

 Seaward wrote:
The societal change responsible for the stamping out of slavery in the US did not occur "within the mechanisms of government."

Oh, so you just misread Polonius then. Ah well, nothing to see hear.

No, it hasn't.

Oh well that's that then.

Anyhow, just for old time's sake - in your libertarian utopia, can a person enter a contract in which they become the slave of another person?