American society today

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Quote (TheMikeSC @ May 16 2002,16:11)

<<<"There is a definite lack of personal responsibility. Everything is becoming a sickness nowadays. "I'm not a total whore---I'm a sex addict". "Don't blame me for my drug usage. It's a disease". PLEASE! People have defects---and most of them are, in fact, their own damned fault."

 

Having known both sex addicts and alcoholics, believe me, those diseases are quite real.  Call it lack of self control or whatever semantic term you want, but the fact is that there are people out there who can't help what they do. >>>

 

 

They absolutely CAN help it. They CHOOSE not to.

 

 

Do you seriously think alcoholism is something a person can control?  Alcoholism is considered a "disease" for a reason, it doesn't go away on it's own, proper treament is necessary and even after going through a state of withdrawl, the person is still an alcoholic.  Alcoholism is a genetic trait that can be passed down from generation to generation.  People can't control what traits they get from there parents and grandparents.  If you think they can they I guess you also think people can control whether or not they have heart problems or cancer.  >>>

 

 

ONE little problem:

 

If somebody DOESN'T DRINK, they CAN'T become alcoholics.

 

Not a sickness---it is pure weakness.

                              -=Mike

[Guest RetroRob215]

Uh, homosexuality is a behaviour, not a genetic disease.

That's still up for debate.  Recent research leans more towards it being genetic, but my reasoning is, why would people want to be different?

[Guest]

I drink regularly. I like to start the morning with a beer or a glass of champagne and it's not uncommon for me to drink a full bottle of wine over dinner. I'd probably be called an alcoholic by the usual standards. I also smoke a pack a day. I suppose that makes me a helpless victim of the evil tobacco industry.

Well, no. I do these things because they give me pleasure. It isn't the government's job to protect me from my vices. No one should pay me if I have to get a liver transplant or chemotherapy as a result. On the other hand, no one should prevent me from exchanging health for pleasure either. It's none of your business. Whether I'm weak or not is irrelevant. I harm no one but myself and I don't ask for federal handouts.

If there's one valid point in the original post, it's that modern society demands too many entitlements and accepts too few responsibilities. But this isn't a new problem by any means, and it won't be solved by trying to enforce a crude morality harkening back to a golden age which never existed. It will be solved only when the government refuses to legislate for virtue, refuses to protect people from the consequences of their actions, and refuses to curry favour with pressure groups by attacking perfectly legitimate businesses. In short, it will be solved when people decide to live with honour.

[Guest]

To expound further on my reaction to the original post: frankly, the instant anyone says that America is corrupt, disgusting, and degraded, I stop listening. Please, go join MAYA. Join al Qaeda. That's one of their central tenets.

 

America is the greatest and most morally upright country in the world. We have transparent institutions, an independent judiciary, legislators who are accountable to the people, and a self-correcting system of government. We have problems, yes, but blatant insults do nothing to solve them.

 

As for me... well, I swore an oath to protect my country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic, and I will uphold it. Insult America if you will. That's Constitutionally protected speech. Rant about its evil and moral degeneracy if you must. But if you go beyond that, and act on your professed revulsion (why are you still here, anyway, if you hate the country so much?), expect to be hunted down like the rabid dog you are.

[Guest DrTom]

"I am an 18-year old conservative."

 

Then you already have some problems.  Trust me, I was an 18 year-old conservative, too.  In the intervening decade, I morphed into a 28 year-old philosophical and social libertarian, while remaining a fiscal conservative.  Why?  Because I didn't know shit when I was 18, and neither do you.  I've seen a lot more of the world (literally and figuratively), I've matured, had and lost relationships, held down jobs, etc etc.  Really, if you know everything already, just move out of your parents' house and set yourself up in the guru business.  With the fall from grace of Dionne Warwick, I'm sure they're looking for a new member.

 

"Those of you who think that, congratulations, you're another feces-spewing drone follower of the liberal media. You see, I'm a conservative because I have common sense."

 

Hmm, not only do you think you know everything, you're pompous and needlessly (and poorly) condescending about it.  Good combo.  

 

" This excerpt from the Marine Corps Gazette, a piece written by William S. Lind, does just that."

" The problem? People's mindsets. This is explained by retired Marine Lt. Gen. Bernard Trainor."

 

First, form your own arguments.  Second, are we really supposed to be surprised that a pair of Marines think American morality has declined in the last fifty years?  What's next, the Navy thinks boats have come a long way since WWII?  

 

" People today have become lazy, selfish, complacent, and unmotivated."

 

That I will agree with.

 

"Drug Useage - Health and well-being are of no concern to drug users."

 

Have you ever seen a drug addict?  Known one?  Maybe when you get a little wet behind the ears, your opinions might mature, but right now, you sound like a teenager parroting the worst of Rush Limbaugh.  I don't really care if someone uses drugs.  It's not the government's job to protect people from harming themselves.

 

"Underage Sex - More and more teenagers are having sex, and on top of that, more and more teenagers are having children. Yet no one really seems to find a problem in either of these, and why? They wish to pass the buck, it's another shirking of responsibility."

 

Newsflash: teenagers have been having sex since someone coined the term "raging hormones," and probably long before that.  It's rare to find someone who HASN'T had sex at some point in their teen years.  Maybe you haven't – and if you sound in school anything like you do here, it's easy to see why – but it's common, and has been for ages.  Remember, girls used to get married at age 16, and that was in the glory days you missed by forty years, but still seem to fondly recall.

 

"Abortion - This is a debateable topic, truly, but I am against abortion, NOT because of the killing of a child (although that factors in), but for the fact that abortion is another passing of the buck."

 

You know, if you'd simply said something to the effect that personal responsibility is a fleeting concept in modern American culture, I'd agree.  If you took that one more step and blamed it on the misnamed "Great Society" and its aftermaths, I'd still agree.  But you're going about it all wrong.  Abortion needs to be legally protected, and it's not a difficult point to see.

 

"School Shootings - Now that teachers are unable to truly teach a student (and parents do not choose to teach their child what to do and what not to do, either, if parents even stay together) right from wrong, with the loss of the ability to punish with a paddle, there has become a new wave in schools today. That of the clique, of the socially elite."

 

You can't possibly be this naïve.  Cliques have existed ever since a few people decided they were better than someone else.  This is hardly a new phenomenon.  Neither are school shootings, incidentally; they're on record as happening in this country as far back as 1784.  I get the feeling you're not the most popular lad on campus, for some reason...

 

Also, corporal punishment is a bad idea.

 

And I agree that the disintegration of the nuclear family has had a negative impact on American children.

 

I feel like such an old codger for saying it, but I thought a lot like you did once.  It only took a few years and a few disparate experiences, though, to pound some chinks into that armor.  You'll meet the people with the hammers soon enough.

[Guest]

Neo-Liberalism (Reegan/Thatcher) operates from the central belief that the person can make the right decisons regarding his/her life and even if their wrong the state shouldn't try and ban them i.e. bying the wrong morgage. This is the true phylisophy of demorcarcy as it realises that humans are good people.

 

In most Juadeo-Christian societies the state has replace the church in regualating human behaviour. The church acted on the belief that most people were evil/stupid and had to be shown the right way. The state then continue this banning things like Canabis, Homosexuality and Alchol.

Political ideologies like Socialism/Facism no matter how dilutued are the succesors to Christainity's political plan.

Reegan broke this (as far as his morality would allow) allowing

people to do what they wanted with their lives and their money as long as it didn't harm other people. To trust people to this extent he must have believed are inhertily good "things" which is entirely against the Judaeo-Christian belief that we are all evil.

 

<Conservatives in America are classical liberals. Heck, the liberals in the country are the most married to maintaining the status quo.>

 

I wasn't talking about the beliefs Conservatives hold but the label, it just seems weird. Surely you have more beliefs to define yourself than I desire to mantain the status quo.

 

Oh yeah on CNN there's a ton of shit that proves that it goes along with the White House agaenda on foreign affairs (I know I miss that bit out, sorry) but I can't be bothered to quote it, maybe tomorrow.

 

William

[Guest DrTom]

"Oh yeah on CNN there's a ton of shit that proves that it goes along with the White House agaenda on foreign affairs..."

 

I don't know if I'd go quite that far, but they've come a long way since mirroring Ted Turner's ultra-liberal philosophy and agenda.  Numerous times since 9/11, I turned on CNN and was quite surprised at how moderate they've become in the past ten years.  They might actually possess the balance that Fox News erroneously claims to.

[Guest]

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.. (1868)" - John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

why did he get banned?

[Guest DrTom]

I didn't do it.  Maybe someone really disliked him using other people's words toi make his arguments.  Who knows?

[Guest]

I could use more of these types for when I stage my fascist takeover of the country in twenty years or so, which I don't understand my want to do, considering I'm actually quite liberal.

 

Just remember: Fascism does NOT equal Nazism, and hardline Communists are the same as hardline Fascists.

[Guest]

<I could use more of these types for when I stage my fascist takeover of the country in twenty years or so, which I don't understand my want to do, considering I'm actually quite liberal.>

 

Similar thing is true of Fortyn. He was called a facist and everything but really he wanted to preserve a liberal lifestyle.

 

<Just remember: Fascism does NOT equal Nazism,

 

Which is something the anti-racist left still can't see. Fascism as far as a can tell is nothing more than the ancient idea of an Obligrachry/ Aristrocracy updated for the 20th Century by thugs.

 

<and hardline Communists are the same as hardline Fascists.>

 

Too true as both see the indiviual as a cog in the machine. Stalin was to all intents and purposes a facist and also many facists in Italy after the war just went and joined the Communists.

 

William

[Guest]

Indeed, Fascism is simply as far to the right as one can go, even past Reactionary. It's a single party state with extremely nationalistic behaviours. Big difference from Communism is that Fascism allows the private sector to keep their businesses, rather than collectivize them or bring them under the pervue of the government.

 

And I have no idea who Fortyn is, but I'm curious.

[Guest]

Pim Fortuyn. Netherlands far-right politician, recently assassinated.

[Guest]

And now you know why Osama Bin Laden hates the U.S.

[Guest Anorak]

The original post may have been overly simplistic in some regards but it hardly justified some of the replies posted by the pompous idiots who plague this board. Is it possible for some of you to put forward an intelligent argument that at some point doesn't resort to personal insults or patronising language? Some of you seem to have an awfully high opinion of yourselves that becomes pretty nauseating when having to read through your condecending 'words of wisdom'. What qualifies you to assume yourself so superior in the ways of the world? Maybe one of the things wrong with modern society is the fact that too many people are flippantly cruel to each other and are basically not very nice people, maybe we're all too cool these days to have a bit of time and respect for others? Does that sound stupidly naive, ridiculous and funny to you? If so, then you're exactly the kind of person i've got little time for.

[Guest]

<Just remember: Fascism does NOT equal Nazism

 

But it's still not for me.

 

Maybe one of the things wrong with modern society is the fact that too many people are flippantly cruel to each other and are basically not very nice people

 

Right on, Anorak, although I don't think this started with 'modern' society.

 

My question:

 

Why do people always refer to the 'liberal' media? Look at who owns these media outlets and you'll see just how 'liberal' they really are.

[Guest]

Is it possible for some of you to put forward an intelligent argument that at some point doesn't resort to personal insults or patronising language?

Theoretically. Anyway, shaddap.

 

maybe we're all too cool these days to have a bit of time and respect for others? Does that sound stupidly naive, ridiculous and funny to you? If so, then you're exactly the kind of person i've got little time for.

Please note definition 2a.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<My question:

 

Why do people always refer to the 'liberal' media? Look at who owns these media outlets and you'll see just how 'liberal' they really are. >>>

 

 

Big corporations own them.

 

And NOBODY in the world is as blatantly PC as a major corporation.

 

Nobody is saying that the media is INTENTIONALLY biased. It's probably NOT intentional.

 

Doesn't mean it's not the case.

              -=Mike

[Guest ant_7000]

Actually, I think media don't favor a certain party I feel media looks out for themselves and try to sell bullshit opinons sometimes.

[Guest DrTom]

Some general replies:

 

"Is it possible for some of you to put forward an intelligent argument that at some point doesn't resort to personal insults or patronising language?"

 

Anorak, the original post was full of exactly those kinds of things.  Fifteen seconds in, and the person who posted it -- who had never been to this board before and admitted to being all of 18 -- was calling people "feces-spewing drones" and other things.  I don't think anyone was overly harsh on him; he got what he deserved for coming on here and talking like a jackass right away.

 

"Why do people always refer to the 'liberal' media? Look at who owns these media outlets and you'll see just how 'liberal' they really are."

 

As Mike pointed out, they're owned by large corporations.  As such they have to worry about things like presenting a good corporate image, keeping the shareholders happy, and being politically correct.  What it all ends up meaning is that we get very "safe" news coverage, and that's best accomplished with a liberal slant.

 

"Actually, I think media don't favor a certain party..."

 

89% of media members voted for Bill Clinton in 1992.  A similar number voted for Al Gore in 2000.  Almost ninety percent of them have voted Democrat recently, so I think their favoring of a certain party is obvious.

[Guest ant_7000]

True, but media personalities tend to look out for themselves it doesn't matter what party they tend to favor, as long if it makes them look good.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

True, but media personalities tend to look out for themselves it doesn't matter what party they tend to favor, as long if it makes them look good. >>>

 

 

Remember 1994? Wasn't it Dan Rather who called the Republicans winning the House a "temper-tantrum"?

 

Remember how the GOP represented the "angry white male" vote?

 

Remember those comments?

                                                -=Mike

 

...Media members are liberal. Unabashedly so.

[Guest]

That's exactly why I decided on sports journalism for my major.  I knew I would be an outcast if I tried to go for anything else.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

I was actually going to post something similar as the 1st post - but I was too lazy

[Jingus 0]

Goddamn I used to type a lot. I couldn't fathom caring enough about any post now to put anything close to that much effort into it.

[SuperJerk 0]

This might be the worst CE thread, ever.

[At Home 0]

Agreed times a hundred million thousand billion.

[bob_barron 0]

Can we put a moratorium on Brody bumping threads? Kind of like we did VanHalen.

[BruteSquad_BRODY 0]

I shall try to self constrain........