Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
All these issues that keep popping up on here (mostly regarding Liberals...see the pattern?) are signs that this country is slowly but surely losing it's moral fiber. Isn't that how Rome went down?
CHE?
- Thread starter Overpaid Union Thug
- Start date
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
But I thought a consensus wasn't needed? Al Gore and the rest of the global warming whackos sure didn't need one. LOL!
But you don't believe them either, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say?
diesel96
Well-Known Member
It's funny how you bring up Al Gore and concensus in the same statement. Don't want to change the subject (yes I do) and beat a dead horse issue but if things ended up as they should have, we probably wouldn't be in the unfortunate quagmire that we are in now.
When I saw this excerpt of Pres Bush making a statement on Castro's resignation, I just about lost a bowel movement (maybe I need more moral fiber). About a 1min and 40 sec into this 2 minute clip Bush mentions "free and FAIR elctions"
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Well believe it or not, Big does have a bit of a point here. Morally our society has declined and when the fabric of morally in the case of self control begins to wain, people look for some mechanism to step in. Filling the gap is based on long standing traditions of western man and it's centralized/aristocratic heiracy of gov't and therefore we conditioned in an evolution in reverse sense to never check ourselves atthe door but rather to look to gov't to make everyone else conform to our own way of thinking and morality. Govt's morality is not always based on true right and wrongs but rather what is in the best interest of what further's gov't and it's power.
Early American society was free because people for one practiced a greater deal of self control because of a number of facors and the population was small and dispersed. People tend to gather in small enclaves are also more likely to be of like mind so local laws and customes were easily adminstered because the people already believed in them. The only time the collective got bigger so to speak was in the course of trade and for the purpose of self defense. It's also argued quite well that only in these type of conditions can you have these type of free and open societies. It's a good point but I'm still a contrian to the end!
As America itself grew and the population became more diverse from immigration, the situation become more complex and then the eventual desires of people's making everyone else conform to their dogma's of life.
Rome fell for a variety of reasons and Gibbons Decline and Fall is withwhile reading. Have it on my bookshelf too along with other historical works of the 18th and 19th centuries. In the years since we've come to learn more and the fall of Rome to the Goths should have come as no surprise to those who knew the great empires before.
Morality in some sense played a factor but not in the same sense you might think. It also was not the over riding factor either as many political moralist so often like to point out. I too at one time belonged to that school of thought until I read more and especially studied the religions of the day. Along with history, I love learning anything about religion. Great subject IMO.
It's easy to use the boogeyman of liberals are the root cause but it really does go way beyond that. I could point to dozens of cases where conservatives over time have in their own self interests underminded the cause of morality but if you'd just study the historical record for yourself, this would become apparent that we all share in the blame.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Morality......Who determines morality? As Kmac points out it ultimately is all of us, whether you conform to morality or cross the line of morality, whether you use it to apply to Gov't, Religion, Politics, whether you live in a small rural community or a large urban population, morality fluxuates to the conditions it is dealt with as well as the acceptance or ridicule of the people afflicted.
Morality also is influence by one era to another era, starting at the begining of recorded history it has evolved from generation to generation and has been used as a tool as mentioned in the first paragraph.
Remember there was a time not so long ago where rock-n-roll and dancing was ilegal, and Elvis wasn't allowed to shake his hips, and womens clothing and bathing suits truly do looked like grandma's attire on young women. And now I am fascinated by the question of how our morality will change in the future. Viewing this question from an assumption that we are on top of the moral pyramid, it is easy to pass judgement on past societies, but how will future generations look down at us in their lofty positions?
An interesting article from one of your libertarian brothers Wkmac:
http://volokh.com/posts/1174960427.shtml
For one group to claim that their the standards for high moral fiber is absolute, is what I refer to as Egoism reflecting self interest, and deflecting any accountabilty of an accusation of a declining moral society.
Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.
Morality also is influence by one era to another era, starting at the begining of recorded history it has evolved from generation to generation and has been used as a tool as mentioned in the first paragraph.
Remember there was a time not so long ago where rock-n-roll and dancing was ilegal, and Elvis wasn't allowed to shake his hips, and womens clothing and bathing suits truly do looked like grandma's attire on young women. And now I am fascinated by the question of how our morality will change in the future. Viewing this question from an assumption that we are on top of the moral pyramid, it is easy to pass judgement on past societies, but how will future generations look down at us in their lofty positions?
An interesting article from one of your libertarian brothers Wkmac:
http://volokh.com/posts/1174960427.shtml
For one group to claim that their the standards for high moral fiber is absolute, is what I refer to as Egoism reflecting self interest, and deflecting any accountabilty of an accusation of a declining moral society.
Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link and I thought he had some good points of how things will look in the future. I remember as a kid in the early to mid 60's when segregation was still in play, when the bunch of us went to town (yeah we lived in Mayberry) for the Saturday matinee movies one of us who was African American had to sit upstairs and the rest of us had to sit down stairs. Now to a bunch of 8 and 10 years olds this made no sense as the rest of the time we fished together, played ball together, built forts and treehouses together but at the movies it was different. That was in that day the accepted moral norm. Now 40 plus years later it would be societally immoral to have us sit seperately at the movie theater. It very well over the next 20, 30, 50 years that what we call moral may see changes.
At the turn of the century (19th to 20th) certain drugs were completely legal and in many cases were in common use. Coca-Cola for example had cocaine among it's ingredients but starting with the end of Prohibiition a societal shift started taking place towards certain drugs that at one point were common and completely legal and within a 20 to 30 year cycle had become a immoral substance to be hated and society seeked out it's destruction.
Were both a case of moral advancement? Or was it a case of agendas being sold as moral causes? In the case of African Americans, white politicians who for years enforced segregation now encouraged de-segregation but one might make the case that de-segregation was all about adding more voters to the rolls that could be manipulated and but de-segregating especially along economic lines, the overall standard of living goes up and thus so does the tax base, giving the politician more money to spend and buy votes and power. Which was the real motive?
In the case of drugs, it doesn't take much research to conclude that drug became illegal after the repeal of prohibition in order to eliminate the competition for the benefit of alcohol. It's a known that alcohol can in some cases be as bad if not worse that some illegal drugs both in human toll and physical negative effects but morally we defend alcohol and shout the evils of various illict drugs. Was it morality that passed the laws or an effort to protect a monopolistic position or rather create one? Again, what was the real motive? I guess we may have to let history play out to decide which answer is the right one.
Years ago a good friend who was a preacher gave a sermon about the nature of man over time and he used the 60's song about the Tinnee-Winnie-Poka Dot Bikini and the shock the 2 piece caused in America. 40 years later it's the thong that's the shocker and the 60's bikini that is the height of modesty. Funny how that all works.
Every group claims moral standanding whether it be religion, politics or jsut societial customs. The socalled left claims the right steal and abuses economically and socially and the right turns around and makes the same claims of the left. Baptists will trash the Methodist and Catholics and visa versa and all of them together will bash the 7th Day Adventist and Mormons. And then we expand out and do the same across the globe at each other. How do you stop it? Pass a law and the gov't determines the route everyone will take but one thing for certain is someone will not get to live their own life and must now conform to someelse's standard enforced as a matter of law. How do they repsond? Politicians, lobbyist, blogs, websites, etc. to convince to gov't to amend the law to their way and disenfranchise those who had been in position of upperhand. Once done, what do the new disenfranchised so? Follow the same course the others took so in the end, no one is truly happy and there is no societal peace. And you wonder why we are all no longer just plain old Americans anymore!
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I brought him up because he likes to present facts, that are, in fact, NOT FACTS pertaining to global warming. He thinks that if he throws together a list of scientists that believe man is causing global warming then he has a "consensus" and that the whole thing must be true. When I suggested that the the country was losing it's morality and that Liberals were behind most of it I was accused of not having a consensus and I thought it was ironic that Liberal chose to respond by saying I dindn't have a consensus. It was a perfect time to mention Al Gore's supposed "consensus."
And yes...he couldn't even win his own state. Us Tennesseans were smart enough to keep him out of the white house.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
But you weren't smart enough to not send him to Washington in the first place when you voted him into the Senate!
Sorry, you put that one in my wheelhouse so I drove it over the wall in deep right field!
Put me in coach!
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
But you weren't smart enough to not send him to Washington in the first place when you voted him into the Senate!
Sorry, you put that one in my wheelhouse so I drove it over the wall in deep right field!
Put me in coach!
First of all....I never voted for him...secondly....those that did obviously learned from their mistake. Otherwise he'd have won in 2000.
Looks like you were robbed of your home run by my trustee outfielder. He snatched the ball off of the right field wall while you were celebrating.
Similar threads
