Bush supporters' aftermath thread

If policies are not based on values, few will either supoprt or benefit from them. Perhaps you know of some policies that are not rooted in values. If we do not agree on values, we will never agree on policy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

If policies are not based on values, few will either supoprt or benefit from them. Perhaps you know of some policies that are not rooted in values. If we do not agree on values, we will never agree on policy.

A community almost never agrees on values, the more diverse in cultural heritage and education, the more this is true. A family often does not agree on values.

So, then what do you do? More to the point, what is the difference between what a facist state will attempt and what a non-coersive state will attempt?

0 Replies

Very interesting, so if Hitler were running against Stalin in a free election would be discussing values or policies?

0 Replies

Baloney. A community is a community purely because it shares one or more, preferably most, values. Community cannot exist in any other condition.

You used the analogy of the KKK. Yes, the KKK has certain values that are shared by a tiny percentage of people in the free world. Those values are rejected by all the rest of us, and therefore will not be made policy.

As most share belief/values/conviction that racial differences should not be a consideration when it comes to all matters of equality, the policy is equal rights for all..

You can't separate the values from the policy.

0 Replies

Fascinating. I never knew Hitler was a Canadian Mounty.

0 Replies

You haven't been paying attention.
--------------------
Meanwhile, of course Fox is right. Communities share values. There is some value at the bottom of...almost every policy. (Every policy? I'm trying to think of one not founded on some value.)

0 Replies

um ok let's try it this way, When the Mormon Church/State Government resolved the issue of slavery by requiring liscensure for slave traders, was that an example of values (slavery is good/bad?) or was a it an example of policy (some mormons had slaves (mostly native americans)?
The Mormon church had no official doctrine for or against slaveholding, and leaders were ambivalent. In 1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for abolition. Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding, declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the practice was ordained by God. In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde said the church would not interfere in relations between master and slave.
The Legislature formally sanctioned slaveholding in 1852 but cautioned against inhumane treatment and stipulated that slaves could be declared free if their masters abused them. Records document the sale of a number of slaves in Utah.
Ironically, in an attempt to halt the Indian slave trade, Governor Young asked the Legislature in 1852 to pass an act that allowed the white possessor of an Indian prisoner to go before the local selectmen or county probate judge and if judged a "suitable person, and properly qualified to raise or retain and educate said Indian prisoner, child, or woman," he could consider the Indian bound to an indenture not to exceed 20 years. Children had to be sent to school for set periods.

0 Replies

In answer to Dys, I think the Mormons at that time probably shared common values and had sufficient numbers and clout to translate them to policy. If a majority of Mormons had not condoned the policy, it would never have become policy. Or that might be a bad analogy in an essential dictatorship which you find in an authoritarian religious environment.

Values expressed as policy only work in a free society. But the Mormons themselves were out of step with the larger community in that issue and the values of the larger community prevailed outlawing all slavery everywhere. (As well as polygamy for that matter.)

And since that time the Mormons have adopted different values and would no longer condone that practice themselves.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, so even though their values might be wrong, it was ok because they represented a majority

Quote:

had sufficient numbers and clout to translate them to policy. If a majority of Mormons had not condoned the policy, it would never have become policy

or are you saying

Quote:

that might be a bad analogy in an essential dictatorship which you find in an authoritarian religious environment

if we are to maintain a free society we need to be careful in avoiding "authoritarian religious environment(s)?"

0 Replies

If we are to maintain a free society, we need to be less concerned about the fringe and more concerned about what values we hold dear and what policies protect, support, and further those. If we do that, a few KKK klaxons or whatever they're called and a rogue religious here and there will have little or no affect on society as a whole.

I am an eternal optimist who believes in the ultimate good in humankind. I think given an environment to decide what should be done and what policies will accomplish it, we will get it right more often than we get it wrong.

(Edited to correct awkward syntax)

0 Replies

well I have to admit I am a bit surprised by the above comment having continously heard from the right the justification basis of "human nature."

0 Replies

Not sure what you mean by that Dys. I haven't heard that from the right (or left) at least phrased that way.

0 Replies

I said

Quote:

A community almost never agrees on values, the more diverse in cultural heritage and education, the more this is true. A family often does not agree on values.

So, then what do you do? More to the point, what is the difference between what a facist state will attempt and what a non-coersive state will attempt?

foxfyre said

Quote:

Baloney. A community is a community purely because it shares one or more, preferably most, values. Community cannot exist in any other condition.

"One or more values"...out of how many held? Take New York city, a century ago or now. Irish, Italians, Russians, Swedes, african americans, Brits, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Morrocan cab drivers, nightclub strippers, Mafia, smugglers, tattoo artists, Pakistani high tech workers, Orthodox rabbis, secular jews, chinese, native indians, south americans and on and on. How many values shared identically? A community is a community, often, simply because people live in proximity with each other.

There is no problem when values are closely shared. The problems arise out of diversity when values are unalike. What then, I asked, are the differences between how a facist state and a non-coersive state will proceed?

But it isn't surprising that you would answer in this manner. It allows you to avoid the problems of diversity. It permits you to inhabit a position which disregards or marginalizes those whose values do not match your own because your values are senior, more proper, more true, more American - heartland values - values unpolluted by lesser peoples.

I am deeply wearied of talking with you folks on these matters.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I am deeply wearied of talking with you folks on these matters.

Pluck up, old man ... we'd take scant joy from winning by default Twisted Evil

0 Replies

One wonders why one so wearied bothers with talking at all though.

0 Replies

Blatham and Fox went in this direction, per Blatham:

"One or more values"...out of how many held? Take New York city, a century ago or now. Irish, Italians, Russians, Swedes, african americans, Brits, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Morrocan cab drivers, nightclub strippers, Mafia, smugglers, tattoo artists, Pakistani high tech workers, Orthodox rabbis, secular jews, chinese, native indians, south americans and on and on. How many values shared identically? A community is a community, often, simply because people live in proximity with each other.
-----------

And, this is apropo to the values thing, the election, red and blue states, and a sense of community.

The difference in the group Blatham has compiled, and, say, a rural hamlet in North Carolina, Georgia, or Ohio. In rural areas, we do have shared values. The majority of people live life in very similar patterns--they spend Autumn Friday nights watching their sons play football, Friday afternoon getting their hair done, they talk for about fifteen minutes on the church portico Sunday afternoon,... Someone in their family has fought and possibly died in defense of this country and they take that, and the flag that represents it very seriously. They are incredulous that OJ got away with murder. They are pissed at the left leaning judicial activism that has incrementally reduced the rights of Christians, while increasing the rights of other religions' practices. They are possibly more pissed that criminals have more rights than their victims.

It really WAS about the lying under oath with Clinton, to them.

If you don't believe in God, or even any higher power than yourself--and you can't really define morality or values (asking other people what this is?)--and you are so cynical that you think flag-waving is a political statement, rather than a personal response to a deeply held emotion that has nothing to do with politics----you will never understand these people.

You just don't have the material required.

This is as clear as the red and blue states by county. The very small, urban blue don't live like we do. I don't even need to make a judgement about this. Its just a difference. They have less, if any, shared values. Blatham is likely right about them. They just live near one another.

0 Replies

One of my clients went through several homeless shelters -- she was raped and molested a few times, not the first time in her life, she dealt with it. But when her son was molested there, she lost it. I helped her do the labyrinthine paperwork to qualify for Section 8 housing and arranged for several temporary measures until her name came up on the waiting list. She had a horrific childhood, a terrible education, and yet was a positive, hard-working presence who benefited hugely from just one government-funded agency (that'd be me) focusing on her problems. There is no reason to purposely make her feel ashamed of her situation.

i both agree and disagree with you , as a person whom has lived a life simalir to that of the girl you were speaking of.if i tryed to change my situation it ment i lost all of the help i desparately needed , all becouse of some stupid regulation , which keepet putting me right back where i started . how ever i found the only way to truly get out of the endless cycile was to change my mind set , the poor in this country are told over and over again that they need all of this help , and after a while they start to beleave it . In a way the system set up to help is really hurting their self image and holding them back . What i'd really like to see is more counseling to help stragten the minds of thoses who have been through the tramma that comes from being poor . once the mind set has changed going back to school , getting a job , owning your own home , is just not all that hard. . the poor need help , we should just reexamine the way we help them.

0 Replies

What Lash said and right on kflux.

I hope some of you really did read those two short essays - I posted links earlier today. They clearly illustrate the problem. Some shared values would clearly produce some solutions.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

This is as clear as the red and blue states by county. The very small, urban blue don't live like we do. I don't even need to make a judgement about this. Its just a difference. They have less, if any, shared values. Blatham is likely right about them. They just live near one another.

No question about it. In the smaller towns where everyone in the neighborhood has at least a half-acre, I'd usually know everyone in the neighborhood but the unsocial one or two. As the towns I've lived in got larger, the property I lived on got smaller yet it seems I was progressively less likely to know my neighbors. Now I live in a Condo, with 145 units and I think the only thing I have in common with my neighbors (most of whom I hadn't met until the hurricane)(4 years after moving in) is that none of us can afford a house on the water.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

I said
Quote:
A community almost never agrees on values, the more diverse in cultural heritage and education, the more this is true. A family often does not agree on values.

So, then what do you do? More to the point, what is the difference between what a facist state will attempt and what a non-coersive state will attempt?

foxfyre said
Quote:
Baloney. A community is a community purely because it shares one or more, preferably most, values. Community cannot exist in any other condition.

"One or more values"...out of how many held? Take New York city, a century ago or now. Irish, Italians, Russians, Swedes, african americans, Brits, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Morrocan cab drivers, nightclub strippers, Mafia, smugglers, tattoo artists, Pakistani high tech workers, Orthodox rabbis, secular jews, chinese, native indians, south americans and on and on. How many values shared identically? A community is a community, often, simply because people live in proximity with each other.

There is no problem when values are closely shared. The problems arise out of diversity when values are unalike. What then, I asked, are the differences between how a facist state and a non-coersive state will proceed?

But it isn't surprising that you would answer in this manner. It allows you to avoid the problems of diversity. It permits you to inhabit a position which disregards or marginalizes those whose values do not match your own because your values are senior, more proper, more true, more American - heartland values - values unpolluted by lesser peoples.

I am deeply wearied of talking with you folks on these matters.

A diversity of values creates problems and a diversity of languages creates problems.

Community has no meaning beyond proximity its members do not substantially agree on what is important in their lives or if they cannot communicate with one another.

The real solution to the problems of diversity is assimilation. There is no more successful melting pot in the the world than the United States. The only difference between the problems of diversity today and the problems of diversity in the past is the present adoration of differences and aversion to assimilation, and what drives these barriers is an obsession with the self, and the here and now of the self.

What we are faced with now is a culture wherein desire for immediate personal gratification is crowding out an appreciation for the long term, and the ability to judge the value of one's life in terms of its effect on others.

Opposing values create problems, they do not stimulate societal growth.

If the immigrants of prior centuries did not share the same basic values of the Americans who inhabited these shores at the time of their arrival, they could not have succeeded. To the extent that any of these groups had divergent values from those of the America they came to live in, if they refused to assimilate, they could not have succeeded.

In the process they not only did not lose their native cultural foundations, they greatly influenced the culture they were joining.

The same is possible for the others of today, if they do not insist on preserving the totality of their otherness while demanding the benefits of community.

Irrespective of the morality of enforcing assimilation, it is not necessary. Left to its own devices, societies will absorb those who are willing and able to assimilate and drive away those who are not. To the greatest extent possible, government should remove itself from the process. It's only legitimate role is to ensure that the law of the land is applied equally and without discrimination to all citizens.

What has been and continues to be the greater threat to our society is not a governmental enforcement of assimilation, but governmental enablement of separatism.

When assimilation occurs, it may appear to some that the majority has won out over the minority, but this is precisely the wrong perspective. Instead, both win, and the majority becomes something new, something which incorporates and reflects the minority, rather than obliterating it.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know