Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 90
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by belthazor
    Do you think if you were born an Iranian that you would be Muslim since they have similar proof as you (personal experience)?
    In the most strict sense of the question, no one can know the answer to that question except God.
    So in the strictest sense, I don't know, I also do not accept the premises of the question.
    Such that all experience of "god" are equal. On a basic level that is prejudicial view against correct personal experience, and throws the baby out with the bath water.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I see no reason why it needs to be so (though it certainly could be) however, Christianity, Judaism, and Muslim religions are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct, but since they all use the same kinds of evidence/logical proofs, if one were found to be incoherent or illogical, probably all three would suffer the same flaw/s\
    That doesn't follow at all. If the same "kind" of evidence is as you are using it boiled down to personal experience, then there is no such thing as a valid conclusion, as we are all experiencing all the evidence we will ever offer or receive.
    It also doesn't bar one from being correct. If I were a liar, that would not make you a liar as well.

    I also think it is important to note that all 3 that you listed are built upon each other. In that they are all trying to point to the same god, not distinct different ones. Even though their perception is different.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I'm quite sure there are, but earth is a big place. I still think (hope) the vast majority of people would see the abject folly of such a though process
    You will find determinism even among atheists and agnostic, though they have very different gods, and may not even use that language.
    To serve man.

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    In the most strict sense of the question, no one can know the answer to that question except God.
    I didn't mean it "in the strictest sense", just askin what you thought?
    Please don't take the question as an insult. It seems some people naturally lean toward belief in a deity. When I talk to people of different faiths they have similar stories/reasons/evidence/logical arguments/etc for their belief. Since Mexican's born in Mexico (just a for instance) identify 80+% Catholic, it seems likely if you were born there, you would be Catholic.
    http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...can-americans/
    "In terms of religious affiliation, however, there are significant differences between Mexicans and Americans of Mexican descent, according to two recent Pew Research surveys. Majorities of both groups self-identify as Catholic, but the percentage of Catholics is 20 percentage points higher among Mexicans (81%) than among Mexican Americans (61%)."

    Again, I meant no offense, it seems a natural question to me?

    ---------- Post added at 05:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That doesn't follow at all. If the same "kind" of evidence is as you are using it boiled down to personal experience, then there is no such thing as a valid conclusion, as we are all experiencing all the evidence we will ever offer or receive.
    It also doesn't bar one from being correct. If I were a liar, that would not make you a liar as well.
    It doesn't fallow at all if you can tell me what Christianity offers as evidence/logical proofs/personal experience/etc that the other two don't.

    ---------- Post added at 05:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:56 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I also think it is important to note that all 3 that you listed are built upon each other. In that they are all trying to point to the same god, not distinct different ones. Even though their perception is different.
    Two of those (for instance) deny Jesus is God. They both believe Jesus is fully human. This is completely incompatible with Christianity.

    ---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You will find determinism even among atheists and agnostic, though they have very different gods, and may not even use that language.
    Most interesting concept
    Would you expand on this please?!

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    Again, I meant no offense, it seems a natural question to me?
    Yea, no offense taken, I understand the question. Statistically speaking what your pointing to is true.
    My general answer is I don't know. I don't think we should try to answer the question on statistics alone because that denies all sorts of factors.
    For example, I believe in Middle knowledge. Which is God's knowledge of things that would be if a given thing had been different.
    I just don't think we have the information to answer the question in any sure sense.
    Sorry, I just think it is more complicated than I can address. .. not a bad question though.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    It doesn't fallow at all if you can tell me what Christianity offers as evidence/logical proofs/personal experience/etc that the other two don't.
    No it doesn't follow that because some personal experience is wrong or mistaken, then ALL personal experience is wrong or mistaken.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Two of those (for instance) deny Jesus is God. They both believe Jesus is fully human. This is completely incompatible with Christianity.
    Right but they are all trying to point to the same god. In other words they are not claiming alternative gods. In the end the difference is about acts attributed to god.
    It seems to me more of a perception of God then a change in idea of him. With of course only one being correct
    Which I don't see a problem with.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Most interesting concept
    Would you expand on this please?!
    I assume you are referencing the deterministic nature of atheist/agnostic.
    Basically if you ascribe to cause and effect, then the original cause necessarily brought about all the interactions that followed.
    So that what you think currently is ultimately the result of the initial state of the universe, through a long chain of causality.

    You can see it through the idea that your current thoughts are simply the result of necessary chemical reactions and the natural effect of evolution.

    The reason I say different gods is because it places the universe in the place of god. Just another "first cause" and "ultimate being".
    To serve man.

  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea, no offense taken, I understand the question. Statistically speaking what your pointing to is true.
    My general answer is I don't know. I don't think we should try to answer the question on statistics alone because that denies all sorts of factors.
    For example, I believe in Middle knowledge. Which is God's knowledge of things that would be if a given thing had been different.
    I just don't think we have the information to answer the question in any sure sense.
    Sorry, I just think it is more complicated than I can address. .. not a bad question though.
    Fair enough

    ---------- Post added at 05:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No it doesn't follow that because some personal experience is wrong or mistaken, then ALL personal experience is wrong or mistaken.
    Where did this come from? I am not getting the connection to my question???

    ---------- Post added at 05:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:48 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Right but they are all trying to point to the same god. In other words they are not claiming alternative gods. In the end the difference is about acts attributed to god.
    It seems to me more of a perception of God then a change in idea of him. With of course only one being correct
    Which I don't see a problem with.
    They deny Jesus is God. Two of the three are not "pointing" that way???

    I just don't see Allah of the Koran as compatible with God of Christianity.

    ---------- Post added at 05:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The reason I say different gods is because it places the universe in the place of god. Just another "first cause" and "ultimate being".
    I think I see what you mean, thank you for the clarification.

  5. #65
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    204
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by FRANK
    Let us define a god as something inherently impossible…something that cannot possibly exist.
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    My friend, how in the world can you maintain that you are an agnostic to such an idea of god?

    I will get to my second point on this, but this can not be under stated, and I would really like you to address it.
    Good point, MT! Which only goes to enforce your OP regarding:

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Presupposition is an assumption that you take into your reasoning and thought process to begin with. It is our bias, or starting point and everyone has them.
    so the question is, does the presupposition that God does or doesn't exist effect how we start to have conversations to begin with?
    It most certainly does, contrary to what Frank has said.

    I've only read up to Post # 27 but Frank's posts are loaded with presuppositions that influence his whole thought process.

    As you have pointed out, he needs to define what God means to him since he professed to be an RC at one time in his life. Thus, he knows the Christian viewpoint. The Christian believes the biblical God created all things and transcends physical creation, so He does not have to comply with the natural world yet is responsible for it. Things have their being because of Him. He does not have to comply with time, since time starts with creation and an eternal being transcends time.


    Regarding his objection to "necessary being" what makes Frank's view of any significance if he is not that being? His thoughts are a dime-a-dozen and he has no course of verifying them because he does not have what is NECESSARY to verify them. How does an agnotic get to the truth? Sure, he can live that way, but he can't make sense of any ultimate 'why' questions. So, as you have rightly pointed out, his view is illogical. It DOES NOT HAVE what is necesssary.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 02:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:27 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is not the question you need to ask. You need to be asking if it is a logically possible definition.
    If it is logically possible, then it isn't gratuitous at all. It is just one of the many possible ideas of god.
    the only reason you have offered to reject it, is because it is 1) unfair, and 2) it is inconsistent with your position. 3) that it's gratuitous

    I think I have addressed all 3.



    I understand that is how you perceive the point, but I am just forwarding a logically possible definition of god, you just seem upset that it is incompatible with your view.
    But I can't really help either of those facts.



    Well you are free to reject it on logical grounds, but not personal preference. If you show me that the definition is not logically plausible, in that it isn't a coherent idea, then you are right to reject it.
    Otherwise, your just refusing to discuss a logically valid idea, is just sticking your head in the sand towards it. But as you point out.. there are other things we can discuss.



    I don't intend any of what I said to be insulting.
    When I say things are coming from your bias, that isn't intended as a personal attack. We all have bias'. It just is meant to draw attention to something your bringing to the debate that isn't justified or stated.

    Which in this case, is that we can talk of any possible idea of god EXCEPT this particular logically possible one. .. because...?
    it would mean you would have to concede your position.

    meanwhile, it is entirely possible that your position is isn't just false.. but necessarily false.


    Well, again I don't intend any of it as an insult to you personally.
    !!!

    I agree completely with you. Frank is not neutral. He has a very definite bias and is avoiding discussing the reasoned or logical position you have laid out to date. This is confirmational bias. This only goes to enforce you OP in which you laid out presuppositional bias in one of two areas - God or no God. As for other gods, I only defend the biblical revelation. I would side with any agnostic or atheist in denying any other god but the biblical God.

    I have not seen any reasoned rebuttal from Frank to date, just avoidance. Maybe he will lay one out, since this is as far as I have read in the thread to date.

    Peter

    ---------- Post added at 02:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    No, I said it "HAS to have a necessary", as in "needs to have a necessary" being because we define God that way.
    IOW, the universe only "has to have/needs a necessary being" because you defined God as such.

    Agreed

    Well, sure. We can discover some things "about the world thru logic alone". However, there are many limitations on that list.Is logic possible without a mind?
    Agreed, if it were true, it would be true independent of human thought...
    1) Can you understand anything about the world without using logic? (Sure, you can see it, but can you understand it?)
    2) Is logic (a state of affairs that is) possible without a mind to conceive it? (If so, how?)
    3) Can the concept of 2+2=4 ever be anything other than 4? (Is it necessary?)
    4) Which non-necessary mind makes the concept 4? (IOW's if you did not exist would 2+2=4 would still be true. If I did not exist it would still be true. If the first human being came up with this concept would he/she be the necessary being for that concept to be true?)

    Peter

  6. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  7. #66
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Where did this come from? I am not getting the connection to my question???
    It comes from your line about it all being the same "kind" of evidence. Maybe you can explain that a little more and I have it wrong.
    My reasoning was offered based on the "kind" of evidence being boiled down to personal experience.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    They deny Jesus is God. Two of the three are not "pointing" that way???

    I just don't see Allah of the Koran as compatible with God of Christianity.
    yea, but they are all made of the same "stuff" so to speak. They reject Jesus as god because he isn't made up of the same stuff as god. (IE a necessary being for one).
    It isn't a rejection of the definition of god, it is a rejection of the identity of god.

    Your point is a fair one, there is some incompatibility, I think I just see it as a perception of god, not the definition of him... but maybe that is because of my ignorance on the other religions stances.
    To serve man.

  8. #67
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Presupposition, is an assumption that you take into your reasoning and thought process to begin with. It is our bias, or starting point and everyone has them.
    so the question is, does the presupposition that God does or doesn't exist effect how we start to have conversations to begin with?
    Mostly not. It tends to come up when we dig down into a values topic or some issue of apologetics, then somewhere at the root, we have a presupposition that drives the difference in our views. I'll sometimes dig for it because if you identify the dividing line, you can often come to an understanding on everything else that flows from it. Anyway...

    Question 1: Why do you think it is, that Christians (especially in Arerica) are so often associated with aggressiveness, a love of guns, military, etc.... when the character of Jesus is so strongly one of peace, love, supplication, and humility?

    Question 2: What in your view are the root tenants and ideals of a Conservative worldview?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  10. #68
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Question 1: Why do you think it is, that Christians (especially in Arerica) are so often associated with aggressiveness, a love of guns, military, etc.... when the character of Jesus is so strongly one of peace, love, supplication, and humility?
    Great question.

    Recently as I have been more exposed to early Christian church. I was struck by the way Christianity spread and took over Rome and thus the "known world". Specifically, at the receiving end of the sword. Through converting their torturers by exhausting with their resilience and refusal to deny Christ. With their peace towards their pursuers such that when police came to arrest an old man christian, he instructed the people to feed them before he went with them... to be tortured and killed. The early church strongly believed in not killing, and preferring to die before taking a life. One pointed example was when Christians were forced into the roman army. They were put at the front of the army and "prayed", refusing to take a life. the story goes that the roman army was dying of thirst and when the Christians prayed it rained on the roman army saving it. The note being that while Christians refused to take up the sword, due to their belief in staying free of blood and thus consecrated to the lord. Rome experienced its greatest time of peace. It was only once Christians took up the sword for war that Rome was again plunged into war. O.k. the point was that the early church was really, really into not killing, and were basically pacifists when it came to war.
    This is one of the resources that has impressed upon me recently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZo6U-ijfgc This lead me to the exact question you ask. Why is it that the church today is so pro war, and why is that so different than the church immediately after Christ.

    So personally this is in stark contrast to the early American Christians. Who had to fight for religious freedom and in many cases were almost biblically aided. The founders spoke freely of "the divine hand of providence". I think it is this latter influence that has lead to the prevailing culture your talking about. I'm not certain I agree with the "aggressiveness" charge. But I do think it is not Christ like. I personally would rather appeal to the early church fathers, over our founding fathers and current church.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Question 2: What in your view are the root tenants and ideals of a Conservative worldview?
    Well, I don't equate conservative with Christian.
    For me, one of the foundations of a conservative view is keeping the political discussions in the right spectrum. Specifically the spectrum of Anarchy and Tyranny. The growth of gov is a move towards tyranny and the decrease of gov is a step towards Anarchy.
    The second, is like the first, in that one must keep in mind that the gov is a fire that must be tended or else it will destroy everything.
    The third is to keep in mind the basis for all gov is the family. I say the family and not people, because it is family that creates the future and establishes the values of the future.
    This third point Implies several things. The first is that the family is the proper influence of the gov, and not the other way around. Also, that personal responsibility is the basis for any sound nation. Regan said that the nations problems are the family's problems multiplied by a million. ... I think that is this third principle at work.
    The forth I think is also implied by the third. That the gov proper job is to protect the rights of the people. In contrast to creating rights.
    Finally, bringing them all together is that the greatest mis-use of the gov is to disrupt the natural effects of irresponsibility. That is the job of the individual. This "good intention" is the root of kind tyranny. .. the worst kind their is.

    That's what I got off the top of my head. Not sure how much that would reflect what people generally recognize as conservative world view....
    To serve man.

  11. Thanks Sigfried thanked for this post
    Likes Belthazor liked this post
  12. #69
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    667
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It comes from your line about it all being the same "kind" of evidence. Maybe you can explain that a little more and I have it wrong.
    Religions all use the same types of evidence and argumentation. Ancient text, personal experience, answered prayers, prophesy, logical arguments (KCA etc), etc...

    No one religion's truth value stands out among the rest.

    ---------- Post added at 11:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It isn't a rejection of the definition of god, it is a rejection of the identity of god.
    Well, yes, they reject that identity of Jesus as God. If Jesus is the only way to salvation, they are going to miss out...

  13. #70
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Religions all use the same types of evidence and argumentation. Ancient text, personal experience, answered prayers, prophesy, logical arguments (KCA etc), etc...

    No one religion's truth value stands out among the rest.
    yes, it is that second part that doesn't follow from the first.
    Quality is what makes Christianity stand out. There simply is no Jesus in any of those, or bible for that matter.
    By lumping them all together under as the same kind you really are missing the distinctions.
    That is like saying all science is really based on personal experience, so no theory's truth value really stands out.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Well, yes, they reject that identity of Jesus as God. If Jesus is the only way to salvation, they are going to miss out...
    Agree
    To serve man.

  14. #71
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    It strikes me from your answers that you are somewhat afield from the center point of the cultural "Christian Conservative" as we know them today. Not a long way off, but a bit. We seem to have a similar view on the Christian question I asked. Certainly, there are some Christians that have a more Jesus like attitude, but they get overshadowed by the brash sort that for me, don't reflect the values of Jesus very accurately as I read them in the bible.

    Your answer on conservatism is interesting but leaves me with more questions.

    You say the government can destroy everything, but what is it destroying and from what was it built originally?

    How would you describe this dynamic of government? I can imagine a few vectors but it's not clear to me exactly what you mean. Families are not about protecting rights especially. And they are largely dictatorships/autocracies in structure being governed by the will of the patriarch or matriarch rather than any kind of law. And families vary rather markedly from culture to culture (though some core ideas persist).

    I'd also ask, doesn't a focus on family dilute the idea of individual responsibility? Are not members of a family part of a cohesive group in some way? I wonder where we demark the lines of individual responsibility and family responsibility and how it is doled out and decided, and where government comes into play.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  15. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  16. #72
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    To Christians and Guns point. Yea, in the past I was faced with a similar question when I responded in some thread to shoot some attacker in the face (or some overly violent response). To which I could and still can only reply.. well I'm not a great christian. That said, there is some tension between turning the other cheek and being the strong man that must first be bound before a home can be invaded. So your question is very applicable to me personally as I pointed out.

    -what is the gov destroying.
    Well, the sort of depends on what it is trying to do. For example, the welfare system was originally set up with human dignity in work in mind. The gov wanted to "help" while not destroying the dignity of the people by just giving them hand outs. Now, that is the farthest thing from the gov mind when it gives aid, and not by accident it has trapped it's citizens in a welfare system and destroyed what it once consciously sought to protect. To me that is a mild example. The extremes are documented by history of other countries. The gov destroys liberty by slowly and eventually violently taking power. In both examples it should be clear that the gov did not create the dignity of work, or liberty, likewise it should be clear that the gov is clearly destroying those same things.
    Such that the family multiplied by a million can build into the country a "puritan work ethic", but only the gov can destroy it so quickly.

    -Familys on protecting rights -
    You are right that family do vary, and that is exactly why the gov has no business getting involved in those differences. At least that should be our starting point, and from there compelling reasons can be offered, and debated. That said, your right in a way, families are really about the families rights But that gets assimilated into the children as a personal right. In other words, the idea that the family owns the house, translates directly to "I can own a house", or "this house will one day be mine". So it isn't like any kind of socialist group. Likewise the "dictatorship" is about authority and families rightly and naturally have that authority. A 2 year old doesn't get a vote in paying the house note or buying toys. It certainly isn't the gov job to impose on a natural order something like that. In the end, I feel no compulsion to even defend how families work, just to note that they do and it is their natural and proper roll. Vs what the gov proper roll should be limited to.. or out of, and why. That second part is much easier to articulate and explain.

    --Dilute individual responsibility.
    I don't think so, because families tend to hold children responsible for their own actions. I don't think the gov has any roll in how a family rolls work. I think it would be a pretty dangerous idea to put the gov over such a task. I mean, even now the gov distinguishes between child labor laws and working for the family.

    The only caveat is in regards to extreme abuse. That really is the exception though, and hardly a door for the gov to be inserted as the proper influencer of a family.
    To serve man.

  17. #73
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Follow ups...

    How do you determine what is dignified and what isn't? Why is work dignified and not working is not dignified. I can certainly think of many examples where not working is dignified and working is not dignified.

    If families vary widely in structure and nature, then how can the form of the state, which must be singular by nature, arise from the family structure or be made to serve them? Would not different families have different needs and desires and values yielding competing interests in the nature of the government?

    Aren't children protected from normal responsibilities all the time? They need not earn their food, nor are they expected to know how to perform common tasks, nor do they have the responsibility of decision making etc... They have a very different set of responsibilities. So that brings up the question, who decides what are approriate responsibilities and what are not and how is it decided?

    What should happen when an individuals rights are in conflict with a familie's interests (as determined by the head of that household)?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #74
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    How do you determine what is dignified and what isn't? Why is work dignified and not working is not dignified. I can certainly think of many examples where not working is dignified and working is not dignified.
    Well, to be clear that was in the context of what the gov was doing and who it was targeting. Namely men.
    So, it isn't me defining what kind of work is dignified. It is basically what has been established through nature throughout time. In other words, I'm not seeking to create the definition, I'm seeking to recognize what is already there.
    So when you ask the question, I would like to know what context a man in his prime is dignified by not working. (Just a hint stay at home dad, is still work as any mother will tell you).


    Also, when is work not dignified?
    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    If families vary widely in structure and nature, then how can the form of the state, which must be singular by nature, arise from the family structure or be made to serve them? Would not different families have different needs and desires and values yielding competing interests in the nature of the government?
    Maybe I'm missing something but it seems that a representative gov is designed to do just that. Serve the needs of the people.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Aren't children protected from normal responsibilities all the time? They need not earn their food, nor are they expected to know how to perform common tasks, nor do they have the responsibility of decision making etc... They have a very different set of responsibilities. So that brings up the question, who decides what are approriate responsibilities and what are not and how is it decided?
    I would think successful families are teaching their children responsibilities. As the roll of the family is to re-create itself. (Ie reproduce).
    As to who decides, it seems pretty obvious that the family inherently decides what the responsibilities of children are. That certainly seems to be the most natural state.
    I don't have to do anything in order for a mother or father to have expectations on their kids. Further it seems that certain responsibilities arise naturally within the family unit.
    If parents are feeding the kids, then some kid will by nature rise up and do it. (I'm not talking the extreme abuse kind.. i'm must talking regular day to day hickups) Like I know my kids will wake up and fix breakfast for themselves if the wife and I sleep in. That seems like a natural responsibility arising to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    What should happen when an individuals rights are in conflict with a familie's interests (as determined by the head of that household)?
    I need a little more info. In the most general sense, that conflict seems to occur naturally at the later part of parenting stage, when the kids are being pushed out of the house by nature.

    -----
    bottom line, you and I may disagree on what a "healthy" family looks like.
    But here I'm simply saying that the state of the family is going to inherently influence the state of gov, and the reverse should not be true. To the extent it is, is a reflection of a broken family system, and will thus lead to a bad gov.
    To serve man.

  19. #75
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    When not working is dignified: At many points in culture people who are at leisure due to their impressive wealth are considered dignified, pillars of society, etc...

    When working is not dignified:
    People who work in occupations that are found one, say sex workers, sewage workers, fast food workers etc... are often not seen as having much dignity.

    I see dignity as an intrinsically social trait. It is both felt by an individual and bestowed upon them by others. So a given person could feel dignified, but be seen by others as having no dignity, and vice versa. It all depends on social standards and norms.

    Maybe I'm missing something but it seems that a representative gov is designed to do just that. Serve the needs of the people.
    Different families presumably have different needs. I guess what I'm trying to understand is how you see a conservative view government, as one that serves families interests, when families could have widely varying interests. Some might describe those interests as liberal-minded, and others might not. So I'm trying to understand (through questions) what makes a family centered view intrinsicly conservitive. It seems to be liberals have families just as much as any conservitive, they just see their needs differently. So what makes this conservitive vision conservitive rather than "whatever people want".

    With kids and responsibility: how do you decide what is abuse and what is normal? If a set of parents decide it the responsibility of their children to marry the neighbor guy in exchange for money, is that OK? If they want them to work in a coal mine, is that OK. How about working on the farm? If a parent wants their adolecent kids to pay for their meals, is that OK? And if we are deciding what is OK and what isn't, by what standards are we making that determination?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #76
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    When not working is dignified: At many points in culture people who are at leisure due to their impressive wealth are considered dignified, pillars of society, etc...
    I'm a bit confused as to the point you are trying to make.
    Are you arguing that I was incorrect and that there is not dignity in working? .. specifically a kind of dignity that would be destroyed by the gov giving people money for nothing.

    Also, I reject the idea that simply being rich bestows some kind of "dignity" or makes a person dignified.
    What you appear to be appealing to is iether people who are rich and thus able to be active in the community (also known as community work), and thus are called "Pillar os society".
    Or perhapse you are appealing to those who are commonly viewed as having achieved wealth through their work. This is generally viewed as the point of working at all, and certainly seems to be family centered.

    The only exceptions to this are people who are wealthy through their parents work, which I do not recongize any inherent diginty in being a rich bum. I think the reverse is actually true that people who are rich and live to party are not looked up to in our society at all.
    Neither are the lucky lotto winners given some sort of greater dignity simply for striking it rich.

    So I don't see how any of that would support your objection to my point. Most of those depend on my point to even exist in our society to begin with.


    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    People who work in occupations that are found one, say sex workers, sewage workers, fast food workers etc... are often not seen as having much dignity.
    Again, I don't think I see how this would support an objection to my point. I mean lets accept that there are some jobs that lack dignity.
    Like blow jobs. Does that then mean that my point that their is diginity in work is false? I don't think so. At least certainly not in the context of what the gov was originally concerned about with regard to "helping" families survive the great depression.

    I mean would you have really stood up in congress and argued .. you know the american families don't need to have their diginity respected and protected by the gov, because prostitutes suck dicks all day and that kind of work is not dignified?

    Rather I would argue that the reason prostitution is not an honorable job, is because it is harmful to families.

    Now to equate sewage workers and fast food workers in that way. I would say that yes, your right our society may look down on those occupations now.
    That is because it isn't a family centered view. Seeing a young man or woman working at any job should make you clap your hands in excitment that another
    producive member of society is being trained. As to sewage workers, I think Dirty Jobs had several millionar sewage workers on the show, and only serves to show how our society has lost track of what real diginity in work is all about.
    In no small part to the gov aiding in destroying that.

    I would ask you WHO exactly despises those things? Because in my personal experience, the people with the most critisism don't have anything.
    - example, I have a friend who purchased a run down house. He was young and single and the house needed lots of work. Myself and some of his other friends
    went to help paint. Nearly all of them complained about what a dump he had, and how bad off it was.. etc. Non of them owned anything. They all rented.

    The same thing happened to my brother in law. His friends would come over and dump on his starter home in need of TLC.. but not a single one of them has anything to their name.

    So, yea, our society may dump on sewage workers, but our society is full of bastard children and over inflated expectations of entitlment and willie wonka level "i want it now" attitudes.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Different families presumably have different needs. I guess what I'm trying to understand is how you see a conservative view government, as one that serves families interests, when families could have widely varying interests. Some might describe those interests as liberal-minded, and others might not. So I'm trying to understand (through questions) what makes a family centered view intrinsicly conservitive. It seems to be liberals have families just as much as any conservitive, they just see their needs differently. So what makes this conservitive vision conservitive rather than "whatever people want".
    The position I have put to you is one where the family is the answer first and for most, and the gov as an answer is generally bad.
    That when we look at problems we see them in the family, and the gov as a bad side effect of it.

    Are liberals family oriented?


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    With kids and responsibility: how do you decide what is abuse and what is normal? If a set of parents decide it the responsibility of their children to marry the neighbor guy in exchange for money, is that OK? If they want them to work in a coal mine, is that OK. How about working on the farm? If a parent wants their adolecent kids to pay for their meals, is that OK? And if we are deciding what is OK and what isn't, by what standards are we making that determination?
    Well, I'm informed of what a family should look like through the bible.
    My point here is that the last thing you want to define that is the gov.

    Sure the gov is going to enforce what the people generally think. Like an age of consent. But the proper roll of gov is to enforce the common idea, not create it, or try to change it.





    ---Who decides, how do you decide what X is defined as.
    Sig you have asked several questions along these lines. (good questions mind you) I don't think I answered them the best possible so far.
    What I should say, is that ultimatly it is the family that decides. What work is honorable? Whatever makes Momma and Pappa proud. While society in general may exert some influence, ultimately the family
    What is abuse? Well, whatever is so out of step with the immediate families, and of course whatever the children grow up and realize was unacceptable to pass on.

    This is not intended as some hard definition that doesn't change. Only that we should view the success of what it is, based on it's effect on families in general.

    No doubt some people think working a kid on a farm is horrible, and working for a sewage company is undignified.
    But when those people come from broken homes, and live a Gheto life style that is generally destructive to the family unit. We should be confident in saying they are simply incorrect. If however their criticism leads to a stronger family unit, then we should consider it.
    To serve man.

  21. #77
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Note: I'm trying to stick to answering questions (and when asked, answering questions). I don't intend to dispute what you say, only to try and clarify it and pry at the foundations to see how it all works. Please don't take either as a dispute of your view.

    Questions of Dignity
    I'm trying to understand this view of yours in the government removing dignity through charity. I'm pointing out the wide range in what people consider dignified since you'd referred to it as something like "natural dignity". I'm not sure what is supposed to make something naturally dignified. In my experience, Dignity is a social trait, bestowed by society and social norms. In many socieities, dignity is related to bloodlines rather than individual deeds etc... And in some cases I can see charity giving people more dignity.

    Because of this, I'm trying to get to the root of what you think dignity is, where it comes from, and why charity intrinsically robs us of it.

    The position I have put to you is one where the family is the answer first and for most, and the gov as an answer is generally bad.
    That when we look at problems we see them in the family, and the gov as a bad side effect of it.
    The family is the answer to what exactly? The ordering of society? Why is the government generally bad do you think? What is it about the nature of government that makes it so bad as where families are good?

    Are liberals family oriented?
    In my experience, yes, very much so.

    Well, I'm informed of what a family should look like through the bible.
    My point here is that the last thing you want to define that is the gov.
    Why is the government the last thing you want defining a family?
    Doesn't the Government more or less define family on behalf of how society defines it? AKA government largely recognizes and sanctions the type of family that people form and find normative.

    But the proper roll of gov is to enforce the common idea, not create it, or try to change it.
    Is this true in all cases? If poeple are ignorant of some information, say a question of public health, shouldn't the government have some role in trying to educate the public as part of its duty to serve and protect?

    What I should say, is that ultimatly it is the family that decides. What work is honorable? Whatever makes Momma and Pappa proud. While society in general may exert some influence, ultimately the family
    What is abuse? Well, whatever is so out of step with the immediate families, and of course whatever the children grow up and realize was unacceptable to pass on.
    I'm trying to find a boundary between what you think a family can do to it's children and what it can't and why. Take this family that was in the news...
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/535058...is-california/

    Would you take issue with the way they raised their children, would you say the state should have intervened, and on what rationalle or principle do you base your view?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  22. #78
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by sig
    Note: I'm trying to stick to answering questions (and when asked, answering questions). I don't intend to dispute what you say, only to try and clarify it and pry at the foundations to see how it all works. Please don't take either as a dispute of your view.
    Not a problem. I apprecate the line you are taking and given that my original answer was really off the top of my head
    it is very possible there is a more base assumption that will only come out under this kind of questioning.
    That said, I don't want to take want to wrongly assume that a point I make is agreed upon. As some of my answers kinda run with some assumptions.

    So, again thank I think your general line of questioning is very helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Questions of Dignity
    I'm trying to understand this view of yours in the government removing dignity through charity. I'm pointing out the wide range in what people consider dignified since you'd referred to it as something like "natural dignity". I'm not sure what is supposed to make something naturally dignified. In my experience, Dignity is a social trait, bestowed by society and social norms. In many socieities, dignity is related to bloodlines rather than individual deeds etc... And in some cases I can see charity giving people more dignity.

    Because of this, I'm trying to get to the root of what you think dignity is, where it comes from, and why charity intrinsically robs us of it.
    So, I do see what your daying in regards to dignity being a social thing. I think I am referring to something a little more basic than that, something that influences that social aspect, but isn't immune from society.

    What I am appealing to is the pride and satisfaction one feels from an honest productive days work. This is what every instruction manual refers to when it says "step back and enjoy a job well done".
    This is clearly not socially created, as if you were on an island... you would still feel that pride swell up as you created fire. (Tom hanks cast away).

    I think this is the root cause that the gov was trying to recongize and protect in the culture when it talked about protecting the diginity of work when creating welfare.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    The family is the answer to what exactly? The ordering of society? Why is the government generally bad do you think? What is it about the nature of government that makes it so bad as where families are good?
    The answer to the root of national problems, and the answer for national problems.
    The gov is generally bad because it is inherently dangerous, and tends to do whatever it tries badly.
    Families get completly changed every generation. Did you not get a puppy when you were a kid... not a problem eventually your an adult and can get your kids a puppy.
    Vs
    Is your gov based on some central concept (like const) that you don't like.... good luck with changing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    In my experience, yes, very much so.
    Sorry, I think my train of thought got interrupted with that question. it was rehtorical. I think it had something to do witht he distinction of conservative and liberal...
    can't remember.. so sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Why is the government the last thing you want defining a family?
    Well, because families existed before the gov, and thus inherently has a meaning apart from the gov.
    Second, because the gov is not nearly as fluid as society is. So that if society really changed it's idea of family, you may find yourself waiting for the right 5 judges to be appointed, which is ridiculous given the previous point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Doesn't the Government more or less define family on behalf of how society defines it? AKA government largely recognizes and sanctions the type of family that people form and find normative.
    This goes to that first point i made about the spectrum of debate.
    Liberal and conservative is going to fall on those lines. So if we answer it with the gov is more likely to screw the definition up than to do a good job with it. Then we may answer with mor anarchy, and less tyranny.
    While the liberal will say the gov is necissary or needed, and iwthout it we won't know what a family even is.. so we need more tyranny and less anarchy.

    Our gov does a lot of things that aren't conservative in nature. Like trying to define marriage for example. Under what I said, the gov shouldn't be doing that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Is this true in all cases? If poeple are ignorant of some information, say a question of public health, shouldn't the government have some role in trying to educate the public as part of its duty to serve and protect?
    Why would a culture be ignorant of relevant informatino regarding a family.. if they came from a family that possessed the information?
    Can you give an example?

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I'm trying to find a boundary between what you think a family can do to it's children and what it can't and why. Take this family that was in the news...
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/535058...is-california/

    Would you take issue with the way they raised their children, would you say the state should have intervened, and on what rationalle or principle do you base your view?
    7 were actually adults. So yea they are clearly criminals.

    So i'm very much for defining crime, and then applying the law to it.
    I'm generally against giving the gov authority over family structure.

    For example in the linked story "smelly surroundings" were included in the "charges". This is IMO part of the states war against the poor and being poor.
    This can be contrasted with the great depression where a family of 15kids or so lsot their farm and ended up living in a chicken coop. .. that they paid rent for.

    Now, if you have ever been around chickens, you can see my point here. Look it sucks to have to grow up poor, and growing up poor (especially extremely poor) come with less than ideal living conditions.
    I don't think that should give the gov cause to take kids from the family.

    Show me a crime, and then put the parrents in jail, then deal with the kids. Don't show me symptoms of a poor family send no one to jail and simply take the kids.
    now clearly the example given the parents were criminals. So it all kinda worked out.

    ..now, do you really want me to decide how you should raise your kids? Because if your not going to church I think you should go to jail. Or how about, if the gov finds out you didn't spank your kids after some event like vandalism, so... we put you in jail for dereliction of parental duty.
    Just saying, you give the gov power, the pendulum swings both ways. It wasn't so long ago that home schoolers had to have an "escape" plan for their children to escape gov custody so the family could run away and stay together. (The story from .. not directly linked.. to the story, just one I heard from them.)https://nogreaterjoy.org/about-us/meet-the-pearls/
    To serve man.

  23. #79
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,252
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Well explained MT! I think I'm getting a clearer picture, or at least, we are discussing more concrete examples so I can see some of your ideas in application. I'm going to switch gears a bit and see if I can expand or build on some of what you say, using some of the base principles but changing the perspective a bit as a challenge. I'll bold any formal questions that arrise.

    I think this is the root cause that the gov was trying to recognize and protect in the culture when it talked about protecting the dignity of work when creating welfare.
    Nice job explaining your sense of dignity here, a mix of pride etc... Honestly, I think it stems from the human social condition of wanting/needing to be a valuable contributor in a society. I think the breakdown I was illustrating (with say, sewage workers) had to do with strata of society where classism takes hold and dignity is assigned a value as a class trait. I think sex workers are a case where we are juxtiposing self sufficiency (which they have) with net social value (which is hotly debated).

    Capitalism, especially on our scale of it, comes with some challenges. There is a matching game of taing what people are good at, and care about, and matching it with what someone needs or wants. There is a catch 22 in capitalism that if you can't get started generating value, it's hard to find anyone to help you because you need value to trade. Obviously family is a source of free value for kids to get them started. Mind you, kids without family, are thus at a big disadvantage. Or, if you find yourself bust in the market at some later age, you may well be in a similar situation.

    Welfare is tricky. It definitely can lead to people choosing straight dependency. They take the money, then they fritter away their time and money on essentially just entertainment. It's rules are designed to discourage that, generally, but some people will simply find a way to make that happen.

    But, it's also there to sole for some of those capitalism issues.
    - Unemployment lets people maintain their capital (home and car) while they transition from one job to another.
    - Food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children is really designed to ensure kids in poor families have enough to eat and get to school so they can get that starting capital needed to be productive in the economy and get labor value they can trade in the market.
    - Medicaid and other medical programs are there to prevent a catastrophic loss of labor capital which impedes one's ability to make social contributions

    So when used responsibly, these programs all can lead to greater dignity. They help people transition jobs in a capitalist market, they help children get a foundation in the market, and they ensure against catastrophic health problems. When abused, they can all lead to reduced dignity.

    So I think we need to ask whether or not the net impact is one where good people are aided in their efforts more or whether bad people are aided in their efforts more. And I think it's important to recognize that getting help in achieving a great job done does not diminish dignity. You should still make a strong effort yourslef, but there is no shame in getting guidance or assistance in your labors or efforts. So someone taking welfare, provided they are also making effort in their lives, is no less dignified than someone who had parents or mentors that helped them succede.

    It seems to me, that it is not the government that is the agent of a lack of dignity so much as the people who choose to take aid and then lack the responsibility to make good use of it.

    That said, if such people can be reliably identified, then perhaps it does make sense to cut them out of such programs.

    A final consideration on the topic is this... How can society best serve people who have useful skills in the market, but lack the skills of finding a place for themselves, recognizing their own skills, or the will to bargain effectively for them? I think that there are actually a great many people like that in the market, and it is because there are so many people like this and feel a need for some authority to help them find a possition, get paid reasonably for it, that they prefer a government that takes care of those aspects for them. Mind you, it is possible for the private sector to do this, and there are firms of this type, so that may not be a good state role, but it seems one that is generally lacking in the marketplace for most people because it is actually somewhat of a rare skill.

    Summary
    I think dignity is an underlying value of both conservitie and liberal viewpoints. Because each rallies around a given policy possition, they tend to discount the other's perspective. I think both have part of the truth and both deny part of it as a result of their focus on a policy as the rallying point. I'm curious how you feel/think about this summary.

    -- More on other points a bit later --

    ---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:40 PM ----------

    The answer to the root of national problems, and the answer for national problems.
    I think that is somewhat axiomatic since government and a nation are intrinsically related.

    The gov is generally bad because it is inherently dangerous, and tends to do whatever it tries badly.
    Why is a government inherently dangerous. What qualities or qualities make it dangerous?
    Why does it do things badly? Aren't there some activities that government is uniquely qualified to do?

    Families get completely changed every generation. Did you not get a puppy when you were a kid... not a problem eventually your an adult and can get your kids a puppy.
    Vs
    Is your gov based on some central concept (like const) that you don't like.... good luck with changing that.
    This strikes me as a question of change vs continuity, tradition vs innovation. For me, that is the root of conservatism vs liberalism (in the very base sense of the words). Yet what strikes me, is you seem to be saying that the conservative viewpoint is the one endorsing change and evolution of new standards. To me, that is a very liberal perspective, to embrase developing and changing standards from the bottom up, rather than to preserve traditional standards and impose them from the top down. (But as I noted before, you are not a traditional conservitive in my expereince and that's what makes this dialog very interesting to me.)

    How would you synergize your view of authoritin and continuity of government vs the authority and continuity of religious teaching? Is it simply that the agent of authority is more trusted in religion (being God) rather than the structure (Authoritarian and unchanging)?

    ---------- Post added at 02:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

    Well, because families existed before the gov, and thus inherently has a meaning apart from the gov.
    Is this some kind of principle? That a later institution cannot comment on or modify the institution that spawned it? I don't understand why this is necessarily true.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  24. Thanks MindTrap028 thanked for this post
  25. #80
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,772
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Omnibus ask anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Nice job explaining your sense of dignity here, a mix of pride etc... Honestly, I think it stems from the human social condition of wanting/needing to be a valuable contributor in a society. I think the breakdown I was illustrating (with say, sewage workers) had to do with strata of society where classism takes hold and dignity is assigned a value as a class trait. I think sex workers are a case where we are juxtiposing self sufficiency (which they have) with net social value (which is hotly debated).
    Thanks for all the kind words.
    You certainly have a point here, there is a social strata at play. I think you do a good job of drawing the distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Capitalism, especially on our scale of it, comes with some challenges. There is a matching game of taing what people are good at, and care about, and matching it with what someone needs or wants. There is a catch 22 in capitalism that if you can't get started generating value, it's hard to find anyone to help you because you need value to trade. Obviously family is a source of free value for kids to get them started. Mind you, kids without family, are thus at a big disadvantage. Or, if you find yourself bust in the market at some later age, you may well be in a similar situation.
    Fair points. The bit about having a hard time getting started is an interesting one. In my experience just about anyone who has "made it" is more than willing to share their knowledge freely to anyone who asks.
    Also, the point you make about family being a source of free value, is powerful. It is family not the gov that subsidizes low income jobs... or at least that should. As opposed to the "living wage" demands of others.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Welfare is tricky. It definitely can lead to people choosing straight dependency. They take the money, then they fritter away their time and money on essentially just entertainment. It's rules are designed to discourage that, generally, but some people will simply find a way to make that happen.
    I think the case is strong that it has done exactly that, not simply that it can.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    But, it's also there to sole for some of those capitalism issues.
    - Unemployment lets people maintain their capital (home and car) while they transition from one job to another.
    - Food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children is really designed to ensure kids in poor families have enough to eat and get to school so they can get that starting capital needed to be productive in the economy and get labor value they can trade in the market.
    - Medicaid and other medical programs are there to prevent a catastrophic loss of labor capital which impedes one's ability to make social contributions
    On the flip side whatever you subsidize you will get more of. So for example food stamps a designed to aid families, they really enable single parrent homes. Which is a distruction of the fabric of a healthy society.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    So when used responsibly, these programs all can lead to greater dignity. They help people transition jobs in a capitalist market, they help children get a foundation in the market, and they ensure against catastrophic health problems. When abused, they can all lead to reduced dignity.
    So I think we need to ask whether or not the net impact is one where good people are aided in their efforts more or whether bad people are aided in their efforts more. And I think it's important to recognize that getting help in achieving a great job done does not diminish dignity. You should still make a strong effort yourslef, but there is no shame in getting guidance or assistance in your labors or efforts. So someone taking welfare, provided they are also making effort in their lives, is no less dignified than someone who had parents or mentors that helped them succede.

    It seems to me, that it is not the government that is the agent of a lack of dignity so much as the people who choose to take aid and then lack the responsibility to make good use of it.
    So again a fair way to evaluate. Is the good outweighing the bad, and can we mediate the bad with better rules.

    I would say that there is nothing inherently wrong with giving people money. Which is ultimatly what we are talking about.
    The obvious effect is that they have more money, and that there is nothing inherently undiginfied about recieving it.

    To that last point I am not so sure. Because generally the people who are activly working for success, and have that self pride and dignity we talked about, are reluctant to take any aid, and become ashamed if they are dependant on it.
    It is then this shame that drives them to move to a place of not needing the donated moneys(in whatever form).

    Once reciving the money is normalized (as our society has) it destoys the self pride culture and establishes an entitled culture. Destroying healthy families along thew way.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    A final consideration on the topic is this... How can society best serve people who have useful skills in the market, but lack the skills of finding a place for themselves, recognizing their own skills, or the will to bargain effectively for them? I think that there are actually a great many people like that in the market, and it is because there are so many people like this and feel a need for some authority to help them find a possition, get paid reasonably for it, that they prefer a government that takes care of those aspects for them. Mind you, it is possible for the private sector to do this, and there are firms of this type, so that may not be a good state role, but it seems one that is generally lacking in the marketplace for most people because it is actually somewhat of a rare skill.
    As a parent I have been pushing for years to discover the tallents of my children, and to help them monitize it. So it seems to me we have the answer to how society can best achieve this.. and that is through family. Is there any room for gov after that? Maybe, but not as any primary tool.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Summary
    I think dignity is an underlying value of both conservitie and liberal viewpoints. Because each rallies around a given policy possition, they tend to discount the other's perspective. I think both have part of the truth and both deny part of it as a result of their focus on a policy as the rallying point. I'm curious how you feel/think about this summary.
    Well, I think if I were to try and summarize. I wouldn't say that human diginity of work is strictly a conservative idea.. clearly it is not, neither is family.
    However, through this discussion I think that the "family" element has shown up as a very different idea. Like when you say how can society serve to do X. My answer is the family, while a liberal is going to read your referance to society as not the family but the community at large and thus the gov.


    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I think that is somewhat axiomatic since government and a nation are intrinsically related.
    yes.. sorry about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    Why is a government inherently dangerous. What qualities or qualities make it dangerous?
    Why does it do things badly? Aren't there some activities that government is uniquely qualified to do?
    I would say it is inherently dangerous because of the kind of tool it is, and because of the nature of man with that tool.
    If it were not inherently dangerous... what would cause us to put limits on it? I mean, i think we both agree the gov shouldn't be free to do whatever it wants... right?
    As to why it doe things badly, is because it is farther and farther removed from the source of the problem.

    For example. During Katrina there was massive clean up needed. So the gov (which is uniquely capable of doing the job) came in, and removed trash for about $100 a cubic yard.
    The state gov also came in, as it is also uniquely capable, and it cleaned up for about $50 a cubic yard.
    Finaly the churches came in, and did the same job at the cost of Free.

    This is the most basic example and proof of what I'm talking about. Granted it is the most mild version of "badly" possible, as it is simply the most expensive option.


    Now then, what is the gov uniquely qualified to do? That is a very good question.
    I would say that the gov is first Uniquely qualified to defend the nation from invasion, to negotiate with other nations to enforce private contracts, and to normalize the market (IE a lb is the same for everyone).
    ... those are the first to come to mind. And I think should at least start to answer your question.
    ...
    more on the rest later.. got to jet... been really busy and read your reply earlier this week... sorry for the delay.
    To serve man.

 

 
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •