Sin - Crime - Immorality > same? similar? different??

[PhilsFan]

So slowly moral standards are being replaced by personal tastes and feelings. Count me as one who sees that as a danger to a civil society and self-governance.

The younger generation, if I may speak for it, is getting exhausted by the older generation's need to tell us how shitty we are all the time.

 

[Irvine511]

yeah, the people fucking things up with their selfishness are the people born 1945-1965. they want health care and social security for themselves, but not for poor people or for younger people. nor do they want to pay taxes. they want all that shit for free, yo.

 

[INDY500]

yeah, the people fucking things up with their selfishness are the people born 1945-1965. they want health care and social security for themselves, but not for poor people or for younger people. nor do they want to pay taxes. they want all that shit for free, yo.

B.S. The Great Society started an $8 trillion War on Poverty to provide food, shelter and health care to the poor. Now it's also been very destructive to communities and families so I'd vote to replace it. Would you?

I'd support letting young people opt out of S.S and raise the retirement age. Would you?

 

[INDY500]

Exactly. I don't think having sins is bad. But I think the selective method of employing them is more the issue. Treating homosexuality like its an ailment is the issue. And excusing it as religious compassion is infuriating.

I think part of my frustration stems from the fact that I am surrounded constantly by very religious people and wish they could understand where I am coming from. But I know they cannot. So I have to live the lie of being a lapsed Catholic instead of an anti-theist with conviction. I fear that I have taken out on some religious people here my personal frustrations with the way that religion has misled my friends and family.

If your parents are as religious and politically conservative as you make them out to be I'd just remind them of this. Our Founders thought enough of the importance of faith to our survival as a country that they tied our rights to God, not man. But they also saw religious tyranny and coercion as an affront to liberty.

It's easy for a Christian to speak out when Catholics, for example, are mandated to act against their religious conscience. It's much harder, but no less important, to respect the right of "free exercise" of those that practice a different religion or choose not to practice a religion.

The younger generation, if I may speak for it, is getting exhausted by the older generation's need to tell us how shitty we are all the time.

Yes it must be exhausting to be the first generation ridiculed by older generations.

 

[PhilsFan]

If your parents are as religious and politically conservative as you make them out to be I'd just remind them of this. Our Founders thought enough of the importance of faith to our survival as a country that they tied our rights to God, not man. But they also saw religious tyranny and coercion as an affront to liberty.

It's easy for a Christian to speak out when Catholics, for example, are mandated to act against their religious conscience. It's much harder, but no less important, to respect the right of "free exercise" of those that practice a different religion or choose not to practice a religion.

I'm not sure what you're on about here, unless you honestly think name-dropping the Founding Fathers is a game-changer in normal discourse.

Yes it must be exhausting to be the first generation ridiculed by older generations.

At least our generation still has a chance to not continue the cycle of blaming all of its woes on young people.

 

[LemonMelon]

Peef, are you anti-theism or anti-religion? Two very different ideas. My father is a fundie and hates church, the people there, etc.

 

[PhilsFan]

Both. I don't believe in God.

 

[Irvine511]

B.S. The Great Society started an $8 trillion War on Poverty to provide food, shelter and health care to the poor. Now it's also been very destructive to communities and families so I'd vote to replace it. Would you?

I'd support letting young people opt out of S.S and raise the retirement age. Would you?

both your information and conclusions are wrong.

American society today is vastly less harsh and much more merciful than it was in the 1950s. today, children don't starve and the elderly don't die in poverty the way that they did in the good old days. there were no good old days. it's a lie conservatives tell themselves.

i agree with raising the retirement age.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm not sure what you're on about here, unless you honestly think name-dropping the Founding Fathers is a game-changer in normal discourse.

for Tea Mobsters, it's a trump card similar to, "why that sounds like something Hitler would say."

 

[LemonMelon]

Both. I don't believe in God.

I think you're looking for the term "atheist," unless you're saying that you consider a belief in a deity to be a dangerous idea that should be wiped from a public consciousness, in which case you would be "anti-theist." Really not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to figure out what your beliefs are via pretty useless labels.

 

[maycocksean]

At least our generation still has a chance to not continue the cycle of blaming all of its woes on young people.

I wouldn't count on that. I mean if the "Don't Trust Anyone Over 30" generation couldn't do it, I doubt you guys will be able to do it.

Kids these days. . . smh.

 

[PhilsFan]

I think you're looking for the term "atheist," unless you're saying that you consider a belief in a deity to be a dangerous idea that should be wiped from a public consciousness, in which case you would be "anti-theist." Really not trying to nitpick, I'm just trying to figure out what your beliefs are via pretty useless labels.

I am not as aggressive as someone like Hitchens, but I do think we would all be better off without religion. I'm probably somewhere between.

 

[financeguy]

both your information and conclusions are wrong.

American society today is vastly less harsh and much more merciful than it was in the 1950s. today, children don't starve and the elderly don't die in poverty the way that they did in the good old days. there were no good old days. it's a lie conservatives tell themselves.

i agree with raising the retirement age.

If millions don't waste their lives, their talents, their skills, their creativity, in dependency, if millions are put in a position whereby they never experience the learned behaviour of dependency - then I'm fully prepared to argue for a return to a pre-Great Society society - even at a cost of a tiny % dying prematurely of starvation.

While it is probably true, in a sense, to state that American society is "less harsh" than in the 1950s, unfortunately, this has come at the cost of a massive increase in the federal debt, and somewhere down the line, that has to be repaid. In fact, the western world is currently undergoing the painful, harsh process of being reminded that societies cannot live beyond their means in the long run.

And this, I think, neatly crystallizes the difference between conservatism and liberalism. Life, at it's core, is harsh and difficult at times. Conservatives don't deny this, whereas liberals attempt to solve the problem by giving enough money to everyone, by redistribution of income. Not only does this not solve the problem, it builds up even bigger problems in the long run. As Thatcher put it, the problem with socialists that eventually they run out of other peoples' money.

 

[anitram]

If millions don't waste their lives, their talents, their skills, their creativity, in dependency, if millions are put in a position whereby they never experience the learned behaviour of dependency - then I'm fully prepared to argue for a return to a pre-Great Society society - even at a cost of a tiny % dying prematurely of starvation.

Of course you would, you're a straight, white man.

Ain't that great of a deal for the rest of us.

 

[BVS]

If millions don't waste their lives, their talents, their skills, their creativity, in dependency, if millions are put in a position whereby they never experience the learned behaviour of dependency - then I'm fully prepared to argue for a return to a pre-Great Society society - even at a cost of a tiny % dying prematurely of starvation.

While it is probably true, in a sense, to state that American society is "less harsh" than in the 1950s, unfortunately, this has come at the cost of a massive increase in the federal debt, and somewhere down the line, that has to be repaid. In fact, the western world is currently undergoing the painful, harsh process of being reminded that societies cannot live beyond their means in the long run.

And this, I think, neatly crystallizes the difference between conservatism and liberalism. Life, at it's core, is harsh and difficult at times. Conservatives don't deny this, whereas liberals attempt to solve the problem by giving enough money to everyone, by redistribution of income. Not only does this not solve the problem, it builds up even bigger problems in the long run. As Thatcher put it, the problem with socialists that eventually they run out of other peoples' money.

So, basically what you're saying is selfishness vs selflessness?

 

[financeguy]

Of course you would, you're a straight, white man.

Ain't that great of a deal for the rest of us.

Sorry, but I don't take classist lectures from wealthy white bien-pensant Wall Street lawyers. Your riposte just shows quite simply that when lefties aren't prepared to grow up and debate the actual issues, or when they run out of arguments, they resort to cheap nasty slurs and bigotry.

It's interesting to note that the only racism in this thread has come from liberals - Irvine's cheap comment about the medicare white elderly elite, and now your nonsense.

 

[financeguy]

So, basically what you're saying is selfishness vs selflessness?

Not, that isn't what I'm saying. I can't think of anything more selfish that expecting taxpayers who work to finance the lifestyles of non-taxpayers who chose not to bother.

 

[BVS]

Not, that isn't what I'm saying. I can't think of anything more selfish that expecting taxpayers who work to finance the lifestyles of non-taxpayers who chose not to bother.

And yet you ALWAYS choose to ignore those who did choose to bother. How convenient...

 

[financeguy]

yeah, the people fucking things up with their selfishness are the people born 1945-1965. they want health care and social security for themselves, but not for poor people or for younger people. nor do they want to pay taxes. they want all that shit for free, yo.

That, in itself, is a reasonable point, and I'd largely agree - the boomers fucked the younger generation.

What is disappointing and unnecessary is that you have to bring the race issue into it, in another thread.

 

[financeguy]

And yet you ALWAYS choose to ignore those who did choose to bother. How convenient...

Nope. You're wrong. You're telling lies again. In fact, as I've already stated, I have no issues with short term unemployment assistance and I myself have availed of it.

 

[anitram]

Sorry, but I don't take classist lectures from wealthy white bien-pensant Wall Street lawyers. Your riposte just shows quite simply that when lefties aren't prepared to grow up and debate the actual issues, or when they run out of arguments, they resort to cheap nasty slurs and bigotry.

First of all, because you don't know me, you're off base, but that's nothing new. I left my old job a while ago, and probably for the same reason that you would have done so.

Second, it's not about growing up, it's about reality. Why would I as a woman want to go back to the 1950s? Why would Sean as a black man? Or Irvine as a gay man? What does this have to do with growing up? What a ridiculous comment, honestly.

 

[financeguy]

First of all, because you don't know me, you're off base, but that's nothing new. I left my old job a while ago, and probably for the same reason that you would have done so.

Glad to hear it, that career would have deadened your soul in the long run.

Second, it's not about growing up, it's about reality. Why would I as a woman want to go back to the 1950s? Why would Sean as a black man? Or Irvine as a gay man? What does this have to do with growing up? What a ridiculous comment, honestly.

I did not argue for going back to the 1950s in any sense other than reexamining the welfare state - simply because, I do not think in the western world, we can afford it. Clearly, I am not suggesting that we go back to treating homosexuals, women or black people as second class citizens - I am on the record as supporting gay marriage for example.

 

[PhilsFan]

And this, I think, neatly crystallizes the difference between conservatism and liberalism. Life, at it's core, is harsh and difficult at times. Conservatives don't deny this, whereas liberals attempt to solve the problem by giving enough money to everyone, by redistribution of income. Not only does this not solve the problem, it builds up even bigger problems in the long run. As Thatcher put it, the problem with socialists that eventually they run out of other peoples' money.

This is the most infuriatingly obtuse thing I've read in a long time.

You have it exactly backwards, FG. It is the liberals who are realistic about the nature of life being harsh, not the conservatives. The conservatives are the ones who perpetuate bullshit notions like the American Dream, the idea that life will reward so long as you work hard. It is the conservatives who say that life will only treat you poorly if you are lazy.

The liberals are the ones who actually have the wherewithall to stand up and say, "There are hard working people who are getting dicked over by the system." There are people out there who work their ass off and have nothing to show for it purely out of circumstance. Liberals are the ones who are realistic, the ones who say that life is hard, and some people are getting an unfair shake for no reason.

Conservatives will just say that you're only poor if you're lazy. That's unrealistic. You see that as pragmatic. It's actually just being an uneducated asshole.

I'm not calling for a system where the people who have good jobs have to finance the people who aren't that fortunate (the notion that this is a "lifestyle," as if it is some fucking choice, is bullshit and you should know better). But I am calling for a system that recognizes its own inherent flaws. Liberals propose a system that is realistic about class structure in this country. Conservatives propose a system that implies that class is a direct result of what people deserve.

So don't fucking tell me that conservatives are the realistic ones. It's a lie. A bitter, rotten lie to its very core.

 

[BVS]

Nope. You're wrong. You're telling lies again. In fact, as I've already stated, I have no issues with short term unemployment assistance and I myself have availed of it.

Yet that's only a small portion of who I'm talking about.

 

[financeguy]

This is the most infuriatingly obtuse thing I've read in a long time.

You have it exactly backwards, FG. It is the liberals who are realistic about the nature of life being harsh, not the conservatives. The conservatives are the ones who perpetuate bullshit notions like the American Dream, the idea that life will reward so long as you work hard. It is the conservatives who say that life will only treat you poorly if you are lazy.

The liberals are the ones who actually have the wherewithall to stand up and say, "There are hard working people who are getting dicked over by the system." There are people out there who work their ass off and have nothing to show for it purely out of circumstance. Liberals are the ones who are realistic, the ones who say that life is hard, and some people are getting an unfair shake for no reason.

Conservatives will just say that you're only poor if you're lazy. That's unrealistic. You see that as pragmatic. It's actually just being an uneducated asshole.

I'm not calling for a system where the people who have good jobs have to finance the people who aren't that fortunate (the notion that this is a "lifestyle," as if it is some fucking choice, is bullshit and you should know better). But I am calling for a system that recognizes its own inherent flaws. Liberals propose a system that is realistic about class structure in this country. Conservatives propose a system that implies that class is a direct result of what people deserve.

So don't fucking tell me that conservatives are the realistic ones. It's a lie. A bitter, rotten lie to its very core.

Just because you've applied your idea of what conservative values represent, and found them wanting, and then, no doubt, not found yourself wanting and duly congratulated yourself on your social conscience, doesn't make it true. I don't accept any of the characteristics you've applied to conservatives as applying to me. I don't fit any of these characteristics that you've outlined and applied to conservatives.

If you seriously and genuinely don't believe some on welfare treat it as a more-or-less permanent, life-long lifestyle choice, and/or a means of financing their drug habits, then come to Dublin some day, and I'll point them out to you. I'll show your their pastimes (principally, hanging around, claiming dole, court appearances, taking, buying and selling drugs), I'll explain how they use the public purse as a means of financing their lifestyle choices - better yet, we can talk to them directly, and they can explain themselves. And they're completely unapologetic, by the way - they literally don't know any better. All these people I'm talking about are 100% white Irish ethnically, incidentally, so there's no racism in this. It's not like in the US, they can't blame it on slavery, or something that happened to their great-great-great-grampy back in the 1860's or whatever.

 

[financeguy]

Yet that's only a small portion of who I'm talking about.

Ok, you've basically retracted your earlier post - fair enough.

So, what else are you talking about?

 

[BVS]

Ok, you've basically retracted your earlier post - fair enough.

So, what else are you talking about?

No, I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

 

[Irvine511]

Shocking, I know, that one would bring race into a thread about immigration. Liberals are the real racists, I know luv.

I'm largely far to busy these days -- being a liberal elitist urban media type -- to bother fully engaging in here. Occasionally something of interest will pop up, but quite honestly, I'm far more interested in discussing the fact that Michael Phelps will be swimming the 400 IM tomorrow at the Olympic trials tomorrow after swearing off the event in 2008 and also that we are just 3 weeks away from season 5 of Breaking Bad.

It's far more productive and fun than attempting to meaningfully engage anymore.

I blame myself.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Glad to hear it, that career would have deadened your soul in the long run.

Why make such generalizations? My brother is a Wall Street lawyer and probably one of the nicest and coolest people you'd meet. Shouldn't paint 'em all with the same brush

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I'll reply more in full to this and other threads tomorrow night, when I'm not so dead tired and can think better.

But I do want to simply comment on this quickly:

In fact, the western world is currently undergoing the painful, harsh process of being reminded that societies cannot live beyond their means in the long run.

I agree living beyond one's means does lead to many problems, but I assume you also are aware that sometimes we wind up spending more money than we can afford to spend not because we wanted to, but because we had to.

Families who found themselves in massive debt when someone got very sick suddenly come to mind. They find themselves paying for way more things than they ever thought they would be paying for as a result, and they wind up in financial struggle.

And then there are those who do live within their means, but their means still aren't enough for them to make any sort of a decent living on.