We must fight to protect our values and our culture - Page 2

never mind...

I always found that what they said about Catholic school girls was true. All of that repression ...

... sorry I drifted off into memories of my youth.

Speaking from experience, I'd have to say, "bring on the conservatives and folks of faith".

There will be a large group of thankful teenaged boys.

This is so stupid.

We all agree that liberalism works in Scandinavia. But the conservatives keep trying to say we need the US to become more conservative. It's idiotic.

Plan A works.
Let's do the exact opposite of Plan A because we believe that'll work, too.

Yeah! That's the ticket!

I think this site is right up Common Man's alley...

The Good Old Days

He's definitely got something right up his alley - could well be that I suppose......

Originally posted by audiopollution
Has nothing to do with subsurvience but if you are the breadwinner in the family (if thats the case) dont you think the woman ought to do something in return? I mean I wouldnt expect a woman to serve me hand and foot (although that would be nice) but she can at least make sure the house looks decent and the kids (if I had any) were taken care of. Just my opinion though

It is unfortunate that some people actually view certain family structures/arrangements in this way. It is rather stereotypical and mostly wrong too.

Hows it wrong? I can undestand it being wrong if both the man and woman are working but if the male is the primary breadwinner then whats the female going to do?

Who are you replying to?

You.

What do you think I meant by my post?

Personally I find that the most ignorant and intolerant people are those that are ultra-religious. Of course this is a generalization but i would be perfectly happy if this entire country was secular humanist.

Ya think?


It is probably a good thing that everyone's purpose in life isn't just to make you happy then.

I hate it when people write that this is a generalization. The statement that preceded those words necessarily is defeated by that statement. Nowhere did steve666 say all people who are ultra-religious are ignorant, and it was clear his statement came from his personal observation of ignorant people. I feel obliged to fix the glaring error of the word generalization: Steve666 finds that the most ignorant and intolerant people are those that are ultra-religious. This is a statement of fact, and is not a generalization.

Well...actually...it is a generalization...all three characterizations are meant apply to all aspects of the people that Steve666 is speaking about:

ignorant? Are these people are ignorant about everything? How is this measured exactly?

intolerant? Are these people are intolerant of everything? How is this measured exactly? Oh, and interestingly...it seems (from his statements) that Steve666 is intolerant of some things too...maybe anyone that isn't a secular humanist.

ultra-religious? What the heck does this even mean? How is the measureed? Are these people are "ultra-religious" about everything?

Of course these are generalizations about people...and they are his opinions as well...it also seems clear that the implication of his statement is that (generally) all people that are "ulra-religious" (again, whatever that means) are (generally) ignorant and (generally) intolerant.

Nope. Just because he didn't define his terms doesn't make them generalizations. He is stating his findings, which is not an inductive conclusion as required to be a generalization.

The best you can get on this path is a declaration that he is falsely interpreting all of his terms and their application to his observations, but his statement of his findings cannot in and of itself be a generalization.

This :

" The left has polluted our culture to an extend that it will take decades to clean it up. "

Is BS!

The nice little 1950's world you want to seem to go back to is what led to this.

Tougher laws and trying to control how people think will only cause more strife.


Wake up!

Well more and tougher laws certainly will not fix any of the problems of our culture today. Laws are merely an external influence/control that really don't stop anyone from doing anything. Of course they do spell out structured consequences if you do (or don't do) something (whatever it is).

So...

1. The way people think cannot be controlled by the law.

2. The way people act really cannot either (people break laws all the time).

3. The law only provides government enforced, structured consequences for doing (or not) some thing...whatever that might be. Typically we say "doing something 'wrong' (whatever this is)."

So the question that might arise here is...why do we have laws at all? Where do they come from? What is their purpose?

(going way out on a limb here...assuming I'm starting some rational discussion...but if history is any indication...well...I'll try it.)

Actually, if laws provided benefit for following them, instead of punishment for not, we may have a system that would be very selective for behaviors, creepily so.

I guess I killed the thread.

You are correct. I misused the word.
But I did incite a discussion, didn't I?

Laws are moral guidlines for those people who are inclined to follow them.

Unfortunately there are good laws and bad laws. Laws that still fill a need and those who's time has come and gone.

However if you have a basic problem in society you can't take care of it by legislation. Take prohibition for example. Trying to stop people from drinking totally was a big failure. In cases like this the law actually provides an venue for criminals to work with.

This is why I'm not so sure it wouldn't be a good idea to decriminalize the use of marijuana. There are a lot of people out there who use this drug. The effects on the body are far less dangeous than even alcohol. In other countries that it has been decriminalized it actually cut down on the criminal activity by taking away a really big source of revenue. Also those people who purchased pot from those people didn't buy anything else they might be selling. So there was a further blow to the criminal.

Before any of the conservatives jump on me here I'm advocating it be controlled just like tobacco or alcohol.
In other words you have to be old enough.

I didn't mean to make this into a soapbox for this subject but it's just one example. Perhaps the most obvious.

The thing is education can do a lot more to change the ills of society than just blunt legislation. Finding what actually causes these problems and stopping the problem from developing is a good start.