|
petsfed
Sep 2, 2004, 12:25 AM
Post #26 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Ditto. The list of "new morality" sounds dangerously close to relative morality. Moral relativism is a cardinal sin in this day and age. So by painting one side as without a moral baseline (which is what relativism is afterall) the otherside is much better by default. To add to that, the lists use words rife with secondary conontations.
"Hedonistic and indulgent" vs. "Duty-based and patriotic." Your opinions are showing. This is rhetoric gamesmanship, pure and simple. Besides, Bill Clinton fired his Surgeon General for suggesting masturbation be taught in schools. Discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Sep 2, 2004, 1:12 AM
Post #27 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: Actually, I was thinking about the increasingly casual attitude towards sex, in general. The mindset that it's the responsibility of those who do work to support those who don't. The prevalence of political correctness over speaking the ugly truth. The rise in open animousity to those in power.
For what it's worth, here's some public opinion data on this, from the University of Chicago's General Social Survey.
Percent of Americans who believe sex with someone other than one's spouse is “always wrong”:
1973: 69.6
1980: 70.5
1985: 74.9
1990: 78.8
1994: 78.5
2002: 79.9
Percent of Americans who believe sex before marriage is “always wrong”:
1972: 36.6
1978: 29.3
1982: 29.0
1988: 26.3
1990: 25.6
1994: 26.0
1996: 23.8
1998: 26.4
2000: 28.0
2002: 27.2
Percent of Americans who agree or strongly agree that “the government in Washington should do everything possible to improve the standard of living of all poor Americans” (vs. “it is not the government's responsibility, and that each person should take care of himself”)
1975: 40.2
1983: 32.9
1987: 34.9
1990: 34.5
1994: 26.8
2000: 27.4
2002: 30.0
Regarding free speech, if a racist "wanted to make a speech in your community claiming that Blacks are inferior, should he be allowed to speak, or not?”
Percent of Americans who say “allow to speak”:
1976: 62.0
1980: 63.3
1985: 56.8
1990: 64.2
1994: 62.6
2000: 61.3
2002: 64.2
And finally, from the University of Michigan's National Election Studies:
Percent of Americans who "trust the government in Washington to do what is right" most of the time or "just about always":
1964: 78
1968: 61
1972: 53
1976: 33
1980: 25
1984: 44
1988: 40
1992: 29
1996: 33
2000: 44
2002: 56
My executive summary of all this:
Over the last 25 years or so, people became more conservative on extramarital sex, but somewhat more accepting of premarital sex. Fewer people believe that government should provide for poor people than a generation ago, and people's willingness to allow an offensive person (racist) to speak has remained stable. Finally, after a dip in trust in government from the mid-70s to the mid-90s, there's been a resurgence in trust in government (those in power) over the last few years.
Obviously a few poll questions over time can't provide the whole picture, but it seems to be more complicated than bumblie suggests.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Sep 2, 2004, 12:26 PM
Post #28 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Shakespeare wrote: "methinks he doth protest too much"
Can't tell if I've stumbled onto the ugly truth or merely presented a load of hooey.
For my own well being, I'll go with the later.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Sep 2, 2004, 2:24 PM
Post #29 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: Actually, I was thinking about single women today versus 40 years ago. Do you think they could've made those Girls Gone Wild videos twenty years ago?... ten years ago? Look at prime time tv - open talk about casual sex is the norm, and many people feel the same. By open animousity, I'm talking about celebrations turning into acts of vandalism and arson, disruptions and violence as a form of protest i.e. WTO meetings and the growing number of anarchist groups committed to much more than peaceful protest.
Bumblie, I just wanted to respond to these two little things.
First, I think you might be interested in reading the Disappearance of Childhood by the late Neil Postman. I think their are some interesting things you could tie in here with the first part above, but whatever!
Second, anarchism has a broad range of people associated with it, and it is not inherently violent. At many protests I have been to there have been a great number of people who would most likely hold anarchist ideals or even label themselves as anarchists, and they are pacifists. Sure there are segments of anarchism who do sometimes look for trouble, such as the Black Bloc, but that is by no means a majority and it is even a smaller segment of the protestor crowd when viewed as a whole. Even the Black Bloc are not always starting problems. The term anachist is just badly misused and distorted in the mainstream.
Furthermore, violence, property distruction, and such as a component of protest is absolutely nothing new in American history, and it in fact helped lead to the creation of this country. (I could give numerous sources to you at some later point if interested.) To view this as something new is to overlook the actions taken by the people for hundreds of years.
Oh, and on the polling stuff, I would want a lot clarified and I would still have questions. On extramarital sex, is that due to the greater ease at which one can get a divorce? On social welfare, what are the negatives, and no responces? I've read a ton of data going in all sorts of different directions on that issue. Trust in government, sure the spikes in the Reagan years, Reagan-like years of today could be seen as a sign of how well they have scared the crap out of some of the people with the War on Terror (versions 1 and 2), as opposed to the real threat of nuclear war that certainly caused a bump in the early 1960s (narrowly escaped in fact).
|
|
|
|
|
dookie
Sep 2, 2004, 2:56 PM
Post #30 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 25, 2003
Posts: 3528
|
In reply to: In reply to: These are pretty vague generalizations that don't hold much water. I would agree with the sex idea, but only so far as a young liberal hippie is more likely to have a casual attitude toward sex than an old, southern baptist housewife. Actually, I was thinking about single women today versus 40 years ago. Do you think they could've made those Girls Gone Wild videos twenty years ago?... ten years ago? Look at prime time tv - open talk about casual sex is the norm, and many people feel the same.
ahhhh, but who's buying the girls gone wild videos?
(hint: my friends went to see that stupid college movie MTV spring break - all full of girls in bikini's etc, just becuase they thought it would be funny. They expected to be surrounded by 20 somethings. They were the only girls in that packed theatre - and were surrounded by 40 to 60 year old men. hmmmmmm - there's your market for such products.)
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Sep 2, 2004, 3:36 PM
Post #31 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Furthermore, violence, property distruction, and such as a component of protest is absolutely nothing new in American history, and it in fact helped lead to the creation of this country.
...never a strong argument in my opinion. Slavery was also "nothing new" at one point in American history.
That something is "nothing new" is not necessarily proof of its validity. Violence and property destruction are the anti-thesis of what we've worked towards in building a constitutional-based method of granting freedoms. In fact they are part and parcel of warfare, which is generally accepted as a last resort. Social and politcal change can be accomplished by a variety of methods in America without violence and property destruction and if you find yourself (not you personally, dook) hanging around with people that condone such methodology you are in the company of people that are perhaps just a few shades removed from the KKK mentality.
If you disagree with me, I'll kick you ass and burn your house down.
|
|
|
|
|
g
Deleted
Sep 2, 2004, 4:24 PM
Post #32 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
In reply to: In reply to: Furthermore, violence, property distruction, and such as a component of protest is absolutely nothing new in American history, and it in fact helped lead to the creation of this country. ...never a strong argument in my opinion. Slavery was also "nothing new" at one point in American history. That something is "nothing new" is not necessarily proof of its validity. Violence and property destruction are the anti-thesis of what we've worked towards in building a constitutional-based method of granting freedoms. In fact they are part and parcel of warfare, which is generally accepted as a last resort. Social and politcal change can be accomplished by a variety of methods in America without violence and property destruction and if you find yourself (not you personally, dook) hanging around with people that condone such methodology you are in the company of people that are perhaps just a few shades removed from the KKK mentality.
Dano, I wasn't arguing in favor of violent action, I was pointing out that this is not a new trend of any sorts. Simple fact there. Violent direct action has been going on since colonial times in this land, and I'm looking at violence against property not lynching.
I am not in favor of violent action, and I think it hurts any particular action in todays society. So I am in favor of direct non-violent action. Direct action in general (protests, sit-ins, etc.), as people like Samuel Adams realized, is a sign that the normal processes which the people can use to effect change in their government are clogged. When that is the case, or people even feel wronged, it is not surprising that they will get out and do something in their power to do.
In reply to: If you disagree with me, I'll kick you ass and burn your house down.
:lol:
I remember one anti-war protest I went to last year, the only scuffle was started by a pro-war guy who was pissed at us. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Sep 2, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #33 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: So I am in favor of direct non-violent action. Direct action in general (protests, sit-ins, etc.), as people like Samuel Adams realized, is a sign that the normal processes which the people can use to effect change in their government are clogged. When that is the case, or people even feel wronged, it is not surprising that they will get out and do something in their power to do.
I understand what you're saying. When I was younger, my lady friend and I attended a few of the "May Day" protests in Washington DC, which were potpourri protests (whatever you could possibly protest was being protested, take your pick). It was mostly a mass party the music was provided by the world's leading groups of the time.
Excellent post, dookie.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Sep 2, 2004, 7:56 PM
Post #34 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Protest - 'Stop the Government'
The day after the veterans had returned their medals, 24 April, 1971, more than 500,000 demonstrators arrived in Washington DC. They intended to shut down the federal government by stopping the flow of traffic into the city on May Day.
Police agents had infiltrated the demonstrators and obtained their 'tactical manual' for the action.
A retired police officer who was on duty that day recalls:
They looked at all of the major access routes coming into the District from Maryland and Virginia, and they made assignments to demonstrators where they could go to block the streets. They were going to come out in waves, so that when the first wave got arrested, the second wave would fill the streets and then a third wave and so on. They had done a pretty good job.
A lot of them came down because they felt very strongly about what they were doing, and a lot of them came for adventure (enter danooguy and company). And adventure meant confrontation.
As a result of the careful planning and disciplined response by the Washington DC Police Force, the city stayed open. Between 3 May and 5 May, about 12,000 protesters were arrested, including ex-Marine Daniel Ellsberg. The Washington DC Police set a United States record for the largest number of people arrested in one city over the course of a single day. Just six years previously, 12,000 would have been considered an unexpectedly large total turnout for an anti-war rally.
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Sep 2, 2004, 8:44 PM
Post #35 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: Actually, I was thinking about the increasingly casual attitude towards sex, in general.
In reply to: The mindset that it's the responsibility of those who do work to support those who don't.
In reply to: The prevalence of political correctness over speaking the ugly truth.
In reply to: The rise in open animousity to those in power. Did you hear about the cop who was hospitalized by protesters in NYC? |
|
|
|
|
rocknut
Sep 3, 2004, 4:29 AM
Post #36 of 36
(658 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2004
Posts: 27
|
"old vs. new morality"
..... "Either what is good and just and true for us is Good and Just and True for all man kind - or our life is in vain" Sean Conery -A Nights tale-
Speaking strictly idealicly.... the "Old" morality is based on an the foundation that there is an absolute Right and Wrong. On top of this foundation all laws governing social interaction and protection is derived.
The "New" morality (stereotypicly) is based on the whim that 'truth' is relative only to the individual...and thus subject to change as desired or 'necessary'
Yes, there are some issues that can be debated from both perspectives...but there must be an absolute foundation of in which all of humanity can abide by --- or else we will kill ourselves. All of the social quarks and arguments are trackable to this fundamental paradigm
|
|
|
|
|
|
