APP - Why should people believe in Liberalism?

DamnYankee

DamnYankee

Loyal to the end
Social liberalism can easily be rejected for what it is, rejection of traditional values blended with "white guilt".
 
Southern Man said:
Social liberalism can easily be rejected for what it is, rejection of traditional values blended with "white guilt".
Click to expand...

A little boy walks into first grade and the teacher asks his name. My name is Southern Man says the little boy. Interesting the teacher replies, and why do you call yourself Southern Man. The little boy puzzled now, thinks hard, starts to answer but is obviously confused. The teacher recognizing the little boy is too young for knowing why, says, well that is nice and someday maybe you will know why you call yourself Southern man.
 
Southern Man said:
Social liberalism can easily be rejected for what it is, rejection of traditional values blended with "white guilt".
Click to expand...

So that was the underlying reason traditional values were changed and mixed race marriages became legal!!

And here I thought it was about equality.
My bad. :palm:
 
Southern Man said:
Social liberalism can easily be rejected for what it is, rejection of traditional values blended with "white guilt".
Click to expand...

I cannot think of any traditional values that were rejected just to reject traditional values. I also do not see the point in keeping these "traditional values" simply because they are traditional values.


Can you cite an example of social liberalism, in which traditional values were rejected for no reason?
 
midcan5 said:
A little boy walks into first grade and the teacher asks his name. My name is Southern Man says the little boy. Interesting the teacher replies, and why do you call yourself Southern Man. The little boy puzzled now, thinks hard, starts to answer but is obviously confused. The teacher recognizing the little boy is too young for knowing why, says, well that is nice and someday maybe you will know why you call yourself Southern man.
Click to expand...
What? This is the most inane rubbish I've ever seen. If the kid called himself Southern Man it would be because it was his name. What is your point?
 
WinterBorn said:
I cannot think of any traditional values that were rejected just to reject traditional values. I also do not see the point in keeping these "traditional values" simply because they are traditional values.


Can you cite an example of social liberalism, in which traditional values were rejected for no reason?
Click to expand...

Actually, there are many people who advocate change for its own sake. That said, traditionalists are forever advocating change from old ways, because it is not the traditions themselves, but the virtues and lessons grounded in tradition that traditionalists are all about. Rome was a cesspool, but the classical values that Romans were taught such as honor and valor are worth passing on through the study of classical history.
 
Threedee said:
Actually, there are many people who advocate change for its own sake. That said, traditionalists are forever advocating change from old ways, because it is not the traditions themselves, but the virtues and lessons grounded in tradition that traditionalists are all about. Rome was a cesspool, but the classical values that Romans were taught such as honor and valor are worth passing on through the study of classical history.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are teens trying to be rebellious and wanting to change everything.

But most of the things I hear people screaming about "traditional values" are either nonsense or things that should have been gone long ago.
 
Threedee said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

Gay marriage, people living together out of wedlock, divorces, single mothers, pre-marital sex, both parents working, open relationships, women working in traditionally male jobs, and some other things that I am sure I have missed.
 
WinterBorn said:
Gay marriage, people living together out of wedlock, divorces, single mothers, pre-marital sex, both parents working, open relationships, women working in traditionally male jobs, and some other things that I am sure I have missed.
Click to expand...

All of the things that deal with the working status of the parents comes down to the fact that the priority objective is making sure the family and the children are taken care off. Traditionally, that was impossible to do in most forms. Most people don't object to an arrangement so long as it puts bread on the table.

Gay marriage, living together in sin, fornication, etc. are all immoral, and the first is a bit of a practical joke. I can't really do anything about the fact that they are just flat-out wrong. Typically, nothing can be done about them anyway, as people will be proles. A good community should stigmatize what is wrong so as to discourage it, however. Gay civil unions is a bit inevitable, so long as leftists continue to push for gay marriage.

Lastly, I don't think anyone wants to see single parents. We all recognize it is an inferior position to the alternative. Life happens, but we all recognize what a tragedy it is when a woman is left alone to make a living while raising one or more children.

Like I said, traditionalists have values and would prefer to see society not have to engage in workarounds such as these.
 
Threedee said:
All of the things that deal with the working status of the parents comes down to the fact that the priority objective is making sure the family and the children are taken care off. Traditionally, that was impossible to do in most forms. Most people don't object to an arrangement so long as it puts bread on the table.

Gay marriage, living together in sin, fornication, etc. are all immoral, and the first is a bit of a practical joke. I can't really do anything about the fact that they are just flat-out wrong. Typically, nothing can be done about them anyway, as people will be proles. A good community should stigmatize what is wrong so as to discourage it, however. Gay civil unions is a bit inevitable, so long as leftists continue to push for gay marriage.

Lastly, I don't think anyone wants to see single parents. We all recognize it is an inferior position to the alternative. Life happens, but we all recognize what a tragedy it is when a woman is left alone to make a living while raising one or more children.

Like I said, traditionalists have values and would prefer to see society not have to engage in workarounds such as these.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone wants to see single parents, but the "traditional values" violation is that she had sex out of wedlock, and either refused to marry the guy or he bailed. Traditionally, she would have given the child up for adoption.

There is a huge difference between community stigma and laws making it illegal.
 
Threedee said:
Like I said, traditionalists have values and would prefer to see society not have to engage in workarounds such as these.
Click to expand...


The implication is that nontraditionalists have no values?


I don't see a problem with traditional values. If that is how you want to live, knock yourself out. But when someone tries to use the force of the gov't to make "traditional values" into laws, I have a problem with that.
 
WinterBorn said:
The implication is that nontraditionalists have no values?


I don't see a problem with traditional values. If that is how you want to live, knock yourself out. But when someone tries to use the force of the gov't to make "traditional values" into laws, I have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

That, and the inevitable result is usually a backlash against them by the proles. But to what you said about getting married or giving up to adoption, the point is to see that children are properly taken care of. If the parents are not capable of raising the child properly, they should seriously consider adoption. If people make a baby, and are too immature to actually become a couple, because they were interested only in sex, then they obviously should do the world a favor and not get married.

Nontraditionalists don't have values, if we use the word as a broad umbrella of numerous things that are virtuous. Since nontraditionalists today are often driven by postmodern politics, all of which are grounded in materialism rather than in principle, I would definitely hesitate to say they have values. At the very least, there are positive values, and they value negative things.
 
Threedee said:
That, and the inevitable result is usually a backlash against them by the proles. But to what you said about getting married or giving up to adoption, the point is to see that children are properly taken care of. If the parents are not capable of raising the child properly, they should seriously consider adoption. If people make a baby, and are too immature to actually become a couple, because they were interested only in sex, then they obviously should do the world a favor and not get married.

Nontraditionalists don't have values, if we use the word as a broad umbrella of numerous things that are virtuous. Since nontraditionalists today are often driven by postmodern politics, all of which are grounded in materialism rather than in principle, I would definitely hesitate to say they have values. At the very least, there are positive values, and they value negative things.
Click to expand...

On the one hand you virtually dismiss the traditional value of a single income and a stay-at-home parent, and on the other you talk about the non-traditionalists being materialistic. Bread on the table is one thing, but of all the "traditional values" that have been thrown out, I think having both parents work so they can have new cars, cable tv, and whatever other baubles appeal to them, is the worst.

The fact that the nontraditionalists have different values does not mean they have no values. Most of the nontraditionalists I have dealt with have been environmentally aware, family oriented, and very interested in equality for all.

Now if we are talking about religious values, that is a different matter.
 
That is definitely a different matter. And, generally speaking, its why I don't make a huge case out of social issues politically. I'm only interested in saving my own soul. While a society built upon postmodern values is one doomed to collapse, I consider it the patriotic thing to only attempt to save America via the reinforcement of liberty and Natural Law. If America winds up needing autocracy to be saved, I say let it burn. I am the the kind of egotistical bastard who would let the Earth blow up just to prove a point. This isn't necessarily a thing to be proud of, but it gives me time to have a good laugh at the world and the stupidity of the human race while sipping my espresso and behaving irreverently. At the end of the day, I'm a realist, and for us, the world is not peachy keen, while the sky is not falling. The sky is still falling, but just very slowly. One day it will come crashing down, but no one will be paying attention anyway...
 
Threedee said:
That is definitely a different matter. And, generally speaking, its why I don't make a huge case out of social issues politically. I'm only interested in saving my own soul. While a society built upon postmodern values is one doomed to collapse, I consider it the patriotic thing to only attempt to save America via the reinforcement of liberty and Natural Law. If America winds up needing autocracy to be saved, I say let it burn. I am the the kind of egotistical bastard who would let the Earth blow up just to prove a point. This isn't necessarily a thing to be proud of, but it gives me time to have a good laugh at the world and the stupidity of the human race while sipping my espresso and behaving irreverently. At the end of the day, I'm a realist, and for us, the world is not peachy keen, while the sky is not falling. The sky is still falling, but just very slowly. One day it will come crashing down, but no one will be paying attention anyway...
Click to expand...

I can respect that.

Its sounds as though you and I have similar outlooks on life in general.
 
Threedee said:
That is definitely a different matter. And, generally speaking, its why I don't make a huge case out of social issues politically. I'm only interested in saving my own soul. While a society built upon postmodern values is one doomed to collapse, I consider it the patriotic thing to only attempt to save America via the reinforcement of liberty and Natural Law. If America winds up needing autocracy to be saved, I say let it burn. I am the the kind of egotistical bastard who would let the Earth blow up just to prove a point. This isn't necessarily a thing to be proud of, but it gives me time to have a good laugh at the world and the stupidity of the human race while sipping my espresso and behaving irreverently. At the end of the day, I'm a realist, and for us, the world is not peachy keen, while the sky is not falling. The sky is still falling, but just very slowly. One day it will come crashing down, but no one will be paying attention anyway...
Click to expand...

Your conception of what america is though is entirely errant, despite all your studies and bullshit. the very conception of a nation is a group that functions to benefit all members of the group. Business is happy selling itself as a public good. "what's good for business is good for america" or " a rising tide raises all ships", or "free markets accrue the greatest savings to the consumer". And these aphorisms are sometimes true, but globalization turns them on their heads.

in the globalized world, the role of "nation" is recast as a government that controls an area of land and manages all it's policies to the maximum benefit of corporations and giving less and less power to people who work for a living.

The rising tide no longer raises all ships, as managers are paid per employee downsized. And no matter how cheap cheap slave labor makes things, they're still too expensive when you're income is zero.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top