I'm confused about the American Republican party

[FireIceTalon]

Do you really not know how important slavery was to working Americans running cotton and agriculture farms? The price of having to pay laborers as opposed to free labor was huge blow to... damn, I don't even know why I have to explain something so obvious.

It's clear to me from your ranting that conversing with you [in this thread] is not going to be productive. Good day.

This has to be the most absurd post I've ever read on here, apart from anything Ashock has posted. Are you being serious, or trolling? I cant tell...It looks like you are trying to discredit Communism by saying Abe Lincoln hurt the working class by freeing the slaves. LMAO. Am I correct? If so, this circular logic you use is asinine to the point of where I'm not sure I should be laughing or crying. First off, Slave owners were NOT working class by any stretch of the imagination. How can anyone who owns x amount of acres of land with a huge mansion on a plantation worked by slaves day and night be considered working class? Is this a joke? They were Bourgeois, white trash, inbred yank scum that tore countless Black families apart, committed genocide, psychological torment and countless other atrocities with forced labor without paying them a dime or ever lift a finger unless it was to whip, shoot, rape, or hang one of their subjects. All because they believed the color of their subjects skin made them 3/5th's of a person. Slaves were animals as far as they were concerned that were told when they could eat or take a shit. They owned NOTHING. And yet somehow the slave owners were hard working class citizens that suffered when slavery was abolished??? Poor babies, they weren't allowed to subjugate the labor, and more importantly the lives, of others anymore and treat them however they wanted. Damn those slaves, how dare they be freed and ruin the lives of their wonderful hard-working captors!!! Be glad I wasn't president back then - I would never have allowed those Confederate douche bags back into the Union after the war was done (and Texas would have gone back to Mexico - for free).

Please DON'T try to explain anything from here on out on this matter, cause clearly your reasoning here is complete and utter nonsense, to put it nicely.....

Sorry LL, but he hit one of my extreme hot buttons.

[DeeBye]

The second is that the "Republican" is not a monolithic mass of single minded opinion.

This is valid and I apologize. I just don't know how else to succinctly describe the mindset I am seeing. Conservative? Fox News Viewers? Taem said it best:

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the current political standing of Republicans running for office.

I know you hate the government's role in schooling, but there really are some things that must be taught to everyone before they start having sex.

Hate is too strong. I oppose it, and I will fight(politically) to get government out of running my life and controlling how and what we teach our children..

We'll have to disagree on this. I think that my government should be empowered to make sure that certain educational standards are set in schools, including basic sex education.

And... mom likes to shop at Walmart, and Target. You shouldn't generalize the quality of parenting by a few negative examples that you've witnessed in your local discount shop.

A few negative examples of bad parenting? You clearly haven't spent much time in a Walmart.

It's not being "dependent" on the government to ensure that schools have a minimum standard of sex education. It's more of an expectation.

It is a complicated issue fraught with extreme examples.

In your eyes, maybe. But in my eyes it's very clear. Teach kids what they need to know. Our views of what kids need to know about sex might differ, but I'm sure there is some common ground we can agree on that would lower the number of teen pregnancies and abortions.

At what age would you suggest children start having sex?

If you have to ask this question, then you missed the whole point of my huge monologue.

Also, this is the last time I am going to try to do replies to individual quotes within a reply. It's incredibly unwieldy.

[eppie]

Do you really not know how important slavery was to working Americans running cotton and agriculture farms? The price of having to pay laborers as opposed to free labor was huge blow to... damn, I don't even know why I have to explain something so obvious.

You are kidding right?

[kandrathe]

We'll have to disagree on this. I think that my government should be empowered to make sure that certain educational standards are set in schools, including basic sex education.

I don't think we differ much. On human sexuality, I agree they should know what they need to know when they need to know it. I believe the schools should work with parents to set the schedule, and to even provide the materials. Sort of the mindset of, "If you don't teach them, then we will." By the time they cover it in public school, it should be review of what Mom and Dad have already taught them.

A few negative examples of bad parenting? You clearly haven't spent much time in a Walmart.

Well, you are right. I don't really like shopping - I tend to make smaller weekly trips to my local grocer. OT: It goes with my basic local philosophy or buying near to my house to ensure that I've done everything possible to support my neighborhoods entrepreneurs. I like having a gas station near my house, so I buy my gas there even if the price is a few cents higher.

In your eyes, maybe. But in my eyes it's very clear. Teach kids what they need to know. Our views of what kids need to know about sex might differ, but I'm sure there is some common ground we can agree on that would lower the number of teen pregnancies and abortions.

We are not that different on this. I think we agree that the objective is to prepare children for adulthood, and to prevent them from engaging in risky behaviors that may kill them, or seriously jeopardize their future success.

At what age would you suggest children start having sex?

If you have to ask this question, then you missed the whole point of my huge monologue.

I asked it that bluntly on purpose. If you start teaching 9 year olds how to engage in sex and give them condoms, then in essence I see it as giving them the nod to go ahead. I have zero problems having health offices in high school (~ age 14 and up) handing out condoms to whomever asks for them -- hopefully they are willing to talk with an adult to get counsel. I have more issues with promoting it, or for encouraging contraception for children under 16. At some point the adult response needs to be, "You should not be engaging in sexual intercourse". Choose an age.

Again, I think as adults we should always counsel abstinence until the young person is mature enough to think about it carefully. Otherwise, it is condoning reckless behavior. It's no different than condoning under aged drinking and driving. Illegal, serious, and in the age of AIDS, potentially deadly.

I didn't always have this straight forward of an attitude on these nearly adult issues. My parents were somewhat lax on the "rules" as I reached the age of adulthood, they allowed some moderate drinking and knew but didn't ask about my sexual encounters. It was a conversation I had a few years ago with my cousin that changed my mind. He basically made the case that if it is against the law, then the appropriate adult response is to support whatever is legal. It is illegal for minors to engage in sex, to smoke, and to drink alcohol, if you disagree with the law, then work to change it. Our culture too often sends mixed messages to our children. Do we support the rule of law governing our society, or not? I mean, we don't teach them how to use alcohol or heroin safely, right? There is a difference between teaching, enabling, and condoning. And yes, it is different in that most everyone will eventually have sex. It is not the case with illegal drugs, and to a lesser extent alcohol. The point being that we've singled out one proscribed behavior as somewhat condoned by age 17, while it is still not legal.

[Kevin]

I asked it that bluntly on purpose. If you start teaching 9 year olds how to engage in sex and give them condoms, then in essence I see it as giving them the nod to go ahead. I have zero problems having health offices in high school (~ age 14 and up) handing out condoms to whomever asks for them -- hopefully they are willing to talk with an adult to get counsel. I have more issues with promoting it, or for encouraging contraception for children under 16. At some point the adult response needs to be, "You should not be engaging in sexual intercourse". Choose an age.

Why the assumption that it all needs to be taught all at once at the same age? Not many subjects worked that way in public school. Math built up (and had lots of review), as did English, Social Studies, History, nearly everything before high school had review and build on previous knowledge.

Human Health Wellness and Sexuality can be the same way. I'm not able to lay a course out right now, but yes you can start as early as 8 or 9 on some subjects that relate to sex, that doesn't mean you are handing out condoms to 8 or 9 year olds, just like you aren't asking 8 or 9 year olds to solve triple integrals even if you may actually present them with problems where that would be the real solution to that.

Again, I think as adults we should always counsel abstinence until the young person is mature enough to think about it carefully. Otherwise, it is condoning reckless behavior. It's no different than condoning under aged drinking and driving. Illegal, serious, and in the age of AIDS, potentially deadly.

So when they are 20? Seriously there are quite a few recent studies that have strong evidence that the human brain isn't fully developed until a person is in their 20's. Assuming these are all true there are real biological impediments to critical and rational thinking before then. Every person is different of course and this is why parents should really be the primary source but if the parents weren't educated because all they had was public school and random drivel they picked up in adult life and nothing was taught in public school, well then they don't know either, there are a lot of parents who are just living with the consequences of their uniformed actions and have no idea how to educate their children.

It is illegal for minors to engage in sex, to smoke, and to drink alcohol, if you disagree with the law, then work to change it. Our culture too often sends mixed messages to our children. Do we support the rule of law governing our society, or not? I mean, we don't teach them how to use alcohol or heroin safely, right? And yes, it is different in that most everyone will eventually have sex. It is not the case with illegal drugs, and to a lesser extent alcohol. The point being that we've singled out one proscribed behavior as somewhat condoned by age 17, while it is still not legal.

Careful here many of those laws are state to state. I think the law was recently changed in Wisconsin but it was legal to drink, at any age, as long as you were accompanied by your legal guardian. This includes in bars. The bar could refuse service to a minor if they wanted ("right to refuse service"), and there was something that might have been that the child couldn't order the drink but a guardian could order a drink directly for their child. The establish was supposed to verify the relationship, but not all underage drinking is illegal. Some states allow marriage as young as 14 which makes "underage" sex legal for that couple too.

I also had classes in public school growing up where we certainly did cover unsafe alcohol use. Which while it wasn't teaching you directly how to use it safely it covered the topic well enough from the other side that it essentially was. I actually thought this was highly valuable information and I know it actually helped stop excessive drinking at a few parties I went to in high school and certainly made me and other students I graduated with approach things a bit differently in college than students from other states that didn't get this info.

Also there is a difference between drug use (legal or illegal, remember caffeine is a drug too) and something that is a basal biological instinct. Using drugs is not something our lower brain functions are telling us we should do. Having sex is. A lot of human history can be boiled down to procreation which of course means sex. We evolved to have it. Our bodies were designed so that it makes us happy to have it to encourage us to have it. Chemical alteration via drugs is something that the species could completely stop doing and it would still continue (though with generally shorter lifespans because of illness). If we stop having sex, there are no more humans.

In young humans, they certainly do have urges to use drugs, experiment, etc. But it's driven by a higher level of thinking, it's much more influenced by societal norms, local norms, and availability. Cavemen masturbated (yes there are cave paintings depicting masturbation) and had sex without any outside influences and this happens with pretty much every human, with or without education they want to have sex or at least I've never met a person who NEVER thought about having sex at some time. Some but not all humans want to try new things or use drugs with or without influence, but I have in fact met several who have had no thoughts of using drugs. Some humans are thinking about having sex as young as 8 or 9 too (which is 3rd grade for most people as I figure it). Though most aren't but I know I was thinking about it the summer between 3rd and 4th grade but yes I hit puberty early.

So they are different, they should be treated different and the reasons why drug use and sex are different should be covered too.

[kandrathe]

Why the assumption that it all needs to be taught all at once at the same age? Not many subjects worked that way in public school. Math built up (and had lots of review), as did English, Social Studies, History, nearly everything before high school had review and build on previous knowledge.

I didn't mean choose an age for when it should be taught. I agree with you that as a part of health and biology classes the mechanics of our anatomy should be taught objectively and age appropriately. I was referring to an age when it would be appropriate to hand out contraceptives to children.

Again, I think as adults we should always counsel abstinence until the young person is mature enough to think about it carefully. Otherwise, it is condoning reckless behavior. It's no different than condoning under aged drinking and driving. Illegal, serious, and in the age of AIDS, potentially deadly.

So when they are 20? Seriously there are quite a few recent studies that have strong evidence that the human brain isn't fully developed until a person is in their 20's. Assuming these are all true there are real biological impediments to critical and rational thinking before then.

For some people that may be rationally appropriate, although it would not be feasible unless it were their choice.

Every person is different of course and this is why parents should really be the primary source but if the parents weren't educated because all they had was public school and random drivel they picked up in adult life and nothing was taught in public school, well then they don't know either, there are a lot of parents who are just living with the consequences of their uniformed actions and have no idea how to educate their children.

It is somewhat assumed that in becoming a parent, it should prompt one consider what might be the responsibilities. You don't get a car, then hop in without understanding how to drive or the rules of the road. But, yes, this is why I think it would be better if the school helped the parents teach their children, then followed up with whatever the parents may have missed in subsequent months. Even if that is a yearly handout of human biology materials that will be covered this year that you may want to teach your child first in your own way.

It is illegal for minors to engage in sex...

Careful here many of those laws are state to state. I think the law was recently changed in Wisconsin but it was legal to drink, at any age, as long as you were accompanied by your legal guardian. This includes in bars. The bar could refuse service to a minor if they wanted ("right to refuse service"), and there was something that might have been that the child couldn't order the drink but a guardian could order a drink directly for their child. The establish was supposed to verify the relationship, but not all underage drinking is illegal. Some states allow marriage as young as 14 which makes "underage" sex legal for that couple too.

That is fine. As the adults in the society, we conform to the laws of the society. Whatever the local laws are should be sufficient. In Minnesota, the drinking age is 21. As such, I will expect and enforce (within my power) that my sons will not drink at all until they are 21. The age of legal consent for having sex is 18, and I would expect and enforce (again, within my power) that for my sons as well. I'm still unsure what I'd do if I caught them doing something illegal, but my responsibility as a parent, and as a citizen would be to report them.

Also there is a difference between drug use (legal or illegal, remember caffeine is a drug too) and something that is a basal biological instinct. ...

I gave a nod to that idea. But, considering the above... As a parent, can you condone illegal activity?

[Mavfin]

In your eyes, maybe. But in my eyes it's very clear. Teach kids what they need to know. Our views of what kids need to know about sex might differ, but I'm sure there is some common ground we can agree on that would lower the number of teen pregnancies and abortions.

To some of you, this may be academic discussion. This is a very real issue to me, seeing that I have three teenage daughters.

I went with the strategy of giving them all the information they want, and probably more than they want. Don't hide things from them. That just makes them want to go find out for themselves.

The oldest is 18 now, and my strategy has worked well. They know in theory about sex, the good and the bad. Neither of my high-school girls has indulged in it themselves, and neither dresses too provocatively, either, *by their own choice*, not because of pressure from me. Any parent with a brain knows that pressure from a parent has limits to what it can do short of locking the kid in the house anyway. Both girls have mentioned that after what I've told them, they watched how the girls who dressed in very revealing clothes got treated. They realized sure, they got a lot of attention, but not always who you would want it from. That's just one example. I think it works far better than "Don't do it, and no, I'm not telling you any more than that."

Doesn't mean they haven't thought about it, and doesn't mean they haven't peeked at the seamier side of the 'net a few times, but, if I've done my job right (and I think I did) it won't harm them. They've been given all the tools they need to think about their actions before doing them, and make the right decisions for themselves.

That is the key to raising well-adjusted teenage girls, and boys, too. Don't shelter them from everything possible and do let them see the world as it really is sometimes before they're 18. So, no, America, you don't have to be super-religious to raise teenage girls who aren't raging hormonal sluts, no matter what the Baptists tell you.\

On the school issue and sex education. Letting parents pick is all fine and good when America had good parenting skills. But we don't anymore. When the local Baptists take over the schoolboard, and a couple years later teen pregnacy rates rise, (and this happened in my wife's old hometown), I think mandating a certain amount of sex education in schools is a good thing. Also, if you really think telling teenagers "Don't do this" is enough to keep them from finding more info and/or trying out something they want to know about, you're fooling yourself. It's much more likely to keep them from finding out the stuff they need to know than stopping them from trying it out anyway. I don't necessarily think the schools need to hand out condoms, but, showing them an example of how to apply one in sex ed class is fine.

Of course, the fact that America gets less and less rural all the time affects the sex ed issue, too. Anyone in a rural area can tell you that the farm kids know more about sex in real terms than the city kids. They may be naive socially, but, they've seen that part in action at some point, and it's just a part of life's cycle to them. My wife grew up in town, and if it hadn't been for her grandmother, she said she might have made some life-altering mistakes, because her mother was all for "Don't do it" and that's all. I grew up out on the farm, and I had the relevant and important things mostly figured out before sex-ed ever got to me.

As I said before, neither the Democratic party nor the Republican party appeals to me. I'm a fiscal conservative, and neither party is that right now, and I'm a social liberal. However, while the Democrats are socially liberal, there's also a streak in their party who think that 'freedom' only means 'free within our politically correct boundaries' or 'free if we approve of it' which is not freedom at all. It's just that gay people are approved, but a man owning a gun is not approved by the Democrats. To me, that's the same thing the Republicans are doing, just turned the other way; guns are OK, gays are not. Also, personal freedom requires personal responsibility, and politicians suck at that, always.

Anyway, I'm not happy with either party at the moment, and I am one of those independents. In the end I'll vote the man (or woman, I don't care), but unfortunately, it's 2004 again.

I would love to see proportional representation of some kind, rather than winner take all, too. I think that would help our system a lot.

[Taem]

Do you really not know how important slavery was to working Americans running cotton and agriculture farms? The price of having to pay laborers as opposed to free labor was huge blow to... damn, I don't even know why I have to explain something so obvious.

You are kidding right?

I'm not purporting the advent or profession of the slavery trade here, merely stating a fact about the effects of removing slavery from a country whose income was dependent upon slaves [at the time]. This isn't a joke, and it was a reality of the times. In the context I was discussing it in regards to political parties of the times and those effected, it was consistent with the example I communicated to FireIceTalon. Please, don't try applying this logic to today's standards, because it is wrong, and I wholly find slavery and exploitation of human beings to be disgusting and vile, but the reality that it [was] done in the past for profit of the individual working-man and/or corporations remains and indisputable fact. I hope that clears things up for you.

[Kevin]

I gave a nod to that idea. But, considering the above... As a parent, can you condone illegal activity?

Yes, though if I did it would also be accompanied with an explanation of why, and additional information on the other steps that are needed to make it legal. Laws are supposed to be living things in my mind. They are not things that should be created and then never ever changed again. If I feel a law is stupid or pointless or injust then yes I certainly will condone illegal activity.

It will also be used to teach how you try and change it, civilly. Since I grew up with a law that said you can drink as long as you are with your legal guardian and saw how this could foster responsible drinking (as well as all the examples of foreign countries that didn't and/or don't have legal drinking ages or ages that were/are much much lower than 21) I personally think that laws that are strict 21 years old before you can drink are not good laws and since I live in one of those states I try to get it changed and I would teach my children the responsible ways of trying to change that law, even while I would allow them to break it in my presence.

That means you follow it in public, because it is a law, but you don't just blindly accept it. If it doesn't make sense you should challenge it and since I also feel that what goes on in ones home, as long as it does not harm anyone else, is generally not the business of anyone who doesn't live there (there are exceptions, there always are). I would allow my children to drink in my home if I were with them but they would not leave the house while under the influence of alcohol because societal law has jurisdiction then. I would also make it clear that my purchasing of and allowing them to drink the alcohol was illegal. That if they, say, disturbed the peace by being overly loud and the police showed up at my door, that I would accept and suffer the consequences of breaking the law by allowing minors to have alcohol since there would be more than one law being broken.

That certainly can lead to a slippery slope, I'm very much aware of that because I also know that it's very likely the child would not fully comprehend all of my actions. I also realize that not all humans have the same level of responsibility, and heck one persons level of responsibility can change daily. It opens doors, but there are ways to deal with that too.

I know I don't follow every law to the letter. That means by example I'm condoning illegal behavior. The most common is that I speed pretty much every time I drive a car on highways or interstates, very rarely in town though. The reason being is that I know the cars I, and 95% of the other motorists, drive are much safer than they were in 1973 when the 55 MPH speed limit was implemented. Most cars on the road as less than 10 years old (the average age in 2011 was 10.2 years which was the highest it's been since 95), so even the changes in the early 2000's that upped several speed limits are likely lagging technology. I do think speed limits are a good idea on most roads (some roads are in good enough condition and have traffic flows where they don't make sense or should be around 100MPH). So yes I write my lawmakers trying to get them to raise highway limits. Limits in cities and towns have more to do with human reaction time to be able to deal with pedestrians, visibility, etc and there aren't nearly the safety improvements to protect people that might be hit by a car (there are some but they are not widespread). As I get older I speed less often and to a lower magnitude because I know my reactions and attention aren't as good as they used to be.

Of course I also think it's important to teach why laws are the way they are, and if you can't then that might be a good reason to question it. I doubt many people really think about why speed limits in towns are often 25. They've never had it explained to them or bothered to think about it. Sure most people if they do think about it will get it, but like most things in life it's easier for most people to follow rules if they understand why those rules are there even if they don't agree with them.

Anyway I'm rambling.

[DeeBye]

I don't have the time nor energy to properly reply to all of your points. As a true Canadian, I apologize for this in advance.

On human sexuality, I agree they should know what they need to know when they need to know it. I believe the schools should work with parents to set the schedule, and to even provide the materials. Sort of the mindset of, "If you don't teach them, then we will." By the time they cover it in public school, it should be review of what Mom and Dad have already taught them.

When I was a wee lad living in a tiny village on the northern shore of the St. Lawrence River in eastern Ontario, my parents called my older brother and myself to the dinner table to have a talk. I can't recall the exact age I was, but I was no older than 6. My brother was (and still is!) 2 years older than me.

My parents showed us some material that the school sent out to all the parents of my brother's class. It explained that they were going to be taught sex-ed. I remember that it was more than just a note to the parents - it was a full-fledged booklet with many pages (illustrated!) explaining exactly what was going to be taught, with a separate booklet for the parents in case they wanted to prepare their child for the upcoming sex-ed talk in school.

My parents chose to "break the news" to my brother before he learned it in school, and since an older brother by natural law cannot keep a secret from his younger brother, I was also dragged into the discussion.

The next hour or so was the most awkward yet enlightening conversation I have ever been a part of. I was way too young to really understand why girls and boys were different, and sexual attraction was many years away for me. 30+ years later, I can still recall my emotional reactions, which ranged from horror to intense interest. Everything from menstruation to nocturnal emissions was explained to me. How my parents managed to explain it all to me in terms my 5-6 year old self could understand, I'll never know.

The reason I am saying this is because the school that provided all of this information to my parents, and taught such early sex-ed, was a Roman Catholic school. There was a Roman Catholic church right on the school grounds, and the principal was a nun (Sister Teresa, she once used her yardstick across my knuckles for misbehaving).

This was in the late-70's/early-80's. I was taught the sex-ed that was necessary, by a very religious institution, in a very detailed way. I get frustrated when hear about kids in the US (and Canada too these days) not getting enough sexual education because of religious groups objecting to it.

It wasn't until I was in Grade 9 (13 or 14 years old) that the same school system taught me about contraception, which looking back on it I think was appropriate. Since it was a Catholic school they focused on abstinence and the rhythm method, but they also taught us about hormonal birth control (the pill) and condoms.

[eppie]

I don't think we differ much. On human sexuality, I agree they should know what they need to know when they need to know it. I believe the schools should work with parents to set the schedule, and to even provide the materials. Sort of the mindset of, "If you don't teach them, then we will." By the time they cover it in public school, it should be review of what Mom and Dad have already taught them.

I also think you don't differ that much. Kandrathe, I have said this often, I think you are a good guy with better intentions, but there is one thing you always forget.

You assume everyone is as well educated and logical thinking as you are.
1st more than 5 billion people on this planet have bigger things to worry about then what we are talking about now, things like ensuring food on the table for this evening.
2nd the rest of the people comprise a part that is rich enough to worry about these things and also smart enough to make good choices, and a part (90 %) that is not smart enough.

[FireIceTalon]

Do you really not know how important slavery was to working Americans running cotton and agriculture farms? The price of having to pay laborers as opposed to free labor was huge blow to... damn, I don't even know why I have to explain something so obvious.

You are kidding right?

I'm not purporting the advent or profession of the slavery trade here, merely stating a fact about the effects of removing slavery from a country whose income was dependent upon slaves [at the time]. This isn't a joke, and it was a reality of the times. In the context I was discussing it in regards to political parties of the times and those effected, it was consistent with the example I communicated to FireIceTalon. Please, don't try applying this logic to today's standards, because it is wrong, and I wholly find slavery and exploitation of human beings to be disgusting and vile, but the reality that it [was] done in the past for profit of the individual working-man and/or corporations remains and indisputable fact. I hope that clears things up for you.

Right, but why doesn't this apply to Capitalism? Sure, its not direct slavery, and it IS an improvement over a feudal/slave system. Marx himself said Capitalism was a progression in society compared to all prior systems. But nevertheless Capitalism IS an exploitative system economically, that has proven to have very destructive political, social, cultural, and environmental consequences as well as economic. One doesn't even have to be a Communist to hold this opinion - the existing material conditions of Capitalism through the years speak for itself. It is a class antagonist system like all systems before it, except that it is simplified in comparison.

I just refuse to believe that this system, which we are told from a young age is the best possible system for humanity, really is the best system. We are told by leadership and the media that this is the best we can do, and to just blindly accept it without critically analyzing it. To believe this system is the end all be all for humanity is not only intellectually dishonest, but also overly deterministic, and most likely, just simply wrong. Nothing lasts forever, and I see no reason to believe Capitalism as being an exception to this. One thing is for sure, if this system does last forever, dont expect society to progress, and for us to reach our true 'species being'. In other words, a Socialist society might not be inevitable, but it is necessary if we want fundamental change, which starts economically and socially - not politically. America's biggest deficit isn't fiscal - it is intellectual !

[kandrathe]

You assume everyone is as well educated and logical thinking as you are.

I'm optimistic enough to believe people are capable of logical thinking, and becoming educated.

1st more than 5 billion people on this planet have bigger things to worry about then what we are talking about now, things like ensuring food on the table for this evening.

You are correct. I'm not thinking about them. Mostly I'm thinking about developed nations where we have the means to worry about things like education.

2nd the rest of the people comprise a part that is rich enough to worry about these things and also smart enough to make good choices, and a part (90 %) that is not smart enough.

I'm not really willing to denigrate the 90%. I will grant that it can seem like people are not smart, but that I believe it has more to do with nurture than nature. This is a complaint that I have with education for the masses in general -- in that it exerts pressure to aim for a least common denominator.

And, it's just not that "cool" to be smart. If you look at media, the geek is not the hero who gets the girl, he is the butt of tired old jokes and quixotically tilts at the windmill of public acceptance. And, for women, it's worse. Smart people have to act dumb to fit into society. And, yes, I do also find I curb my vocabulary at social gatherings.

[eppie]

I hope that clears things up for you.

Yes.

---

You assume everyone is as well educated and logical thinking as you are.

I'm optimistic enough to believe people are capable of logical thinking, and becoming educated.

1st more than 5 billion people on this planet have bigger things to worry about then what we are talking about now, things like ensuring food on the table for this evening.

You are correct. I'm not thinking about them. Mostly I'm thinking about developed nations where we have the means to worry about things like education.

2nd the rest of the people comprise a part that is rich enough to worry about these things and also smart enough to make good choices, and a part (90 %) that is not smart enough.

I'm not really willing to denigrate the 90%. I will grant that it can seem like people are not smart, but that I believe it has more to do with nurture than nature. This is a complaint that I have with education for the masses in general -- in that it exerts pressure to aim for a least common denominator.

And, it's just not that "cool" to be smart. If you look at media, the geek is not the hero who gets the girl, he is the butt of tired old jokes and quixotically tilts at the windmill of public acceptance. Smart people have to act dumb to fit into society. And, yes, I do also find I curb my vocabulary at social gatherings.

Indeed, but eventhough I am not so positive as you regarding the intelligence of my fellow men and women, I agree that a large part is nurture here. But still; if you happen to have grown up in the getto's or in a christian extremist bible town how are you supposed to make the right decissions if noone tells you to.
We give people freedom and with that comes giving them the freedom to *** up their own lives.

Anyway luckily still most higher positions in society are manned by 'smart people'. But on the negative site, a large chunk of all smart people is also too egoistic....which sadly is human nature......and maybe having a smart narcicistic egoist in charge might be worse than having a dumb person in charge.

[eppie]

However, while the Democrats are socially liberal, there's also a streak in their party who think that 'freedom' only means 'free within our politically correct boundaries' or 'free if we approve of it' which is not freedom at all. It's just that gay people are approved, but a man owning a gun is not approved by the Democrats. To me, that's the same thing the Republicans are doing, just turned the other way; guns are OK, gays are not. Also, personal freedom requires personal responsibility, and politicians suck at that, always.

Your poltical opinion is radiating from this comparison you make. try looking at what you wrote from a neutral persons perspective.

Saying a person is not OK because he is sexually atracted by the same sex (something that he has no influence whatsoever over) is NOT the same as saying that owning a gun or not is OK.
(this must be one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever read here on the lounge).*

You could have just made a comparison between guns and drugs or so.

*and this includes the comparisons I have used msyelf

---

It will also be used to teach how you try and change it, civilly. Since I grew up with a law that said you can drink as long as you are with your legal guardian and saw how this could foster responsible drinking (as well as all the examples of foreign countries that didn't and/or don't have legal drinking ages or ages that were/are much much lower than 21) I personally think that laws that are strict 21 years old before you can drink are not good laws and since I live in one of those states I try to get it changed and I would teach my children the responsible ways of trying to change that law, even while I would allow them to break it in my presence.

That means you follow it in public, because it is a law, but you don't just blindly accept it. If it doesn't make sense you should challenge it and since I also feel that what goes on in ones home, as long as it does not harm anyone else, is generally not the business of anyone who doesn't live there (there are exceptions, there always are). I would allow my children to drink in my home if I were with them but they would not leave the house while under the influence of alcohol because societal law has jurisdiction then. I would also make it clear that my purchasing of and allowing them to drink the alcohol was illegal. That if they, say, disturbed the peace by being overly loud and the police showed up at my door, that I would accept and suffer the consequences of breaking the law by allowing minors to have alcohol since there would be more than one law being broken.

Of course health is an issue here as well. It is known that getting drunk is pretty damaging to young brains. (of course just drinking 1 or 2 beers on an evening is indeed no really harmful.

[Jester]

... try looking at what you wrote from a neutral persons perspective.

How does one do that, exactly? We have values, and our interpretation is coloured by them. If we had no values at all, none of this would make sense to us - the questions would be meaningless.

-Jester

[Kevin]

Of course health is an issue here as well. It is known that getting drunk is pretty damaging to young brains. (of course just drinking 1 or 2 beers on an evening is indeed no really harmful.

Oh absolutely and perhaps my use of the term under the influence made people jump to drunk. I've been legally drunk one time in my life. But one or two drinks has an effect and puts you under the influence. There is alcohol in your system so you are technically under the influence. But that is part of the point of only allowing drinking around a legal guardian. While I've stated earlier that many parents are unfit, having them around should help foster responsible drinking.

Perhaps my ideas only work because it's illegal most places so it's easier to hammer home that you do this responsibly or you don't do it all because you'll get in trouble everywhere else.

Anyway I was mostly trying to use a relatable example to try and help illustrate my concept that condoning illegal behavior may not be so black and white. Which I think ties into the fact that I believe our system of government was meant to be flexible and deal with the shades of grey that we all encounter in the world. The jury of your peers concept is in part a protection against the pure letter of the law. If the rest of the society that you live in, as represented by the jury, feels that your actions were reasonable even if they may have technically broken the law you can go free. Juries can help enforce the intent of the law. Police can enforce the letter of the law. I was taught that somewhere along the line and perhaps that really isn't part of the concept of a jury trial and I know it's not the only reason for a jury trial. Perhaps what I was taught was really wacky and I've been laboring under false pretenses, ones I've kept because on the inspections I've given them they seem to hold up.

Dunno just some more ramblings from me. I'm verbose on the topic but that doesn't mean I'm passionate about it.

[kandrathe]

Anyway luckily still most higher positions in society are manned by 'smart people'. But on the negative site, a large chunk of all smart people is also too egoistic....which sadly is human nature......and maybe having a smart narcissistic egoist in charge might be worse than having a dumb person in charge.

Which is the main reason why I'm more in favor of highly distributive and minimalist power sharing. Let each person be in charge of themselves, and each community govern those things they share, then trickle the remainder upwards to State and Federal as needed. This way, according to your view of humanity, the major idiot in charge of your life would be yourself.

[Mavfin]

... try looking at what you wrote from a neutral persons perspective.

How does one do that, exactly? We have values, and our interpretation is coloured by them. If we had no values at all, none of this would make sense to us - the questions would be meaningless.

-Jester

Thanks, Jester, you beat me to it.

To me, those are both personal freedom issues, so that's why I compared them, not putting relative values on them. Both are limiting others' freedom for ideological reasons, and I don't agree with either one.

[FireIceTalon]

For some people it may be ideological, but not for everyone. I personally believe in both gay marriage rights and the right to bear arms. But our values also must be prioritized in some way. The question of course is how we do this, and in what way. I'm speaking in more generalized terms, such as freedom vs. equality, order vs justice, and such. But in the case of gay marriage and gun rights, I place a higher value on the former. The reason is because being against it would treat a group of people in our society as second class citizens, while the latter is more of a broad issue, and while I consider people rather than guns to be dangerous, nevertheless there can be potentially harmful consequences on regarding gun laws. There is absolutely no harm done to society by allowing gays to marry. The context of specific values and policy must be measured in some way, saying they both fall under personal freedoms is not enough because it oversimplifies things. Although the right to bear arms could very well end up being necessary to achieve things like marriage equality, ironically enough I will leave strict gun laws to the utopian Libs like Obama. Afterall, us revolutionaries need our guns too. I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit if conservatives changed their position on the right to bear arms if they knew people like me agreed with them, lol.