Interesting talk about cause of Liberal vs. Conservative views

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

I don't think the studies showed that liberals didn't have any loyalty or respect for authority, it just showed that their value of those was lower overall.

And that was kind of the point of the video wasn't it, that either "side" by itself probably couldn't constitute a fully working society.

Didn't the study show equal numbers for each base virtue in conservatives. A balance of sorts. It might take an uprising of liberals every now and then to bring about a change but, they certainly lack the complete package to manage society.

Originally Posted by photon

As you say order is necessary in a society, and loyalty and authority have provided those in the past. But there must also be times where loyalty and authority are discarded or usurped, otherwise we wouldn't have the leaps forward in social consciousness that we get sometimes. Sometimes the government has to be overthrown because it is so corrupt being loyal and submissive does more harm than good. Sometimes an individual needs to move outside the authority so that things live freedom from slavery, rights for women, etc can become part of the social consciousness despite efforts of those in authority to stop it.

Your obviously thinking of the sixties. I agree that the upheaval had some great benefits for society even given the excesses that were also present. The problem today is we haven't yet recovered from the sixties. Our society hasn't developed a consensus on right or wrong since. We have been born and lived in a prolonged National identity crisis. There is no standard of purity and without it our way of life will die.

Originally Posted by photon

To me it would be nice if society worked without having to submit to authority and everyone does what's right because it's right, but we're probably a long way off from that.

We will never achieve that goal. The best we can do is try to be better than we are.

[missdpuck]

By purity do you mean a moral purity,or some totality of purpose? I can't help but think of Sylvia Plath-" Pure? What does it mean?..." Yikes.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

By purity do you mean a moral purity,or some totality of purpose? I can't help but think of Sylvia Plath-" Pure? What does it mean?..." Yikes.

I mean a moral purity based on a consensus of society. Ethical standards that both liberals and conservatives see as self evident. Our society lacks a strong sense of shame and on the other end of the spectrum we lack a consensus on what is right and good. Without it we are forced to restrict our freedoms with burdensome laws. Without it we will fail when faced with a national crisis that requires courage and sacrifice.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Judges begins as Joshua(Moses successor) dies. They have the high Priest and the Tabernacle for worship but, no political leader. Soon Israel falls into sin. Usually it is the worship of other gods. God is angered and allows the nations around them to be victorious against them. Israel cries out to God. God hears them and raises up a judge who brings military success and justice to the land. Israel behaves themselves while the judge still live. The judge dies and Israel falls into sin. The cycle repeats itself.

You are right that God warns Israel about the perils of government and Kings. The thing is God does this knowing full well they would want one anyhow. In fact he has instructions for Kings in the Mosaic law. Man would do better without government and all its trappings if we were all good people. The problem is that even the best liberal or conservative misses the mark. We all have our dark selfish side. None of us live up perfectly to our ideals and plenty fail miserably at doing what they know they should. Law and order are needed because of who we are.

Ah, and you were doing so well until you started preaching at the end. I find the whole 'born in sin' approach very depressing and not something from my god. It has more to do with preachers trying to scare the crap out of me so I'll give them money.

I'd quit speaking in generalities such as 'man' and 'people' and 'none of us' and 'we all' and 'they', and tell what you have experienced, not what you've been taught in a second hand way. I've fallen into this trap too and find it better to say, "I have my dark selfish side", recognize it and then forget it. Guilt doesn't help me in connecting with god, in fact it makes it almost impossible. It may have far more truth to it.

[missdpuck]

Well put. We allow many things in the name of freedom and pleasure that are utlimately self defeating both for the individual and society. Then the question is asked "who makes the rules?" To me they ultimately make themselves, that is , in the sense of society continuing on without destroying itself. I love poetry as poets say it so much better...http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/103.html

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Ah, and you were doing so well until you started preaching at the end. I find the whole 'born in sin' approach very depressing and not something from my god. It has more to do with preachers trying to scare the crap out of me so I'll give them money.

I'd quit speaking in generalities such as 'man' and 'people' and 'none of us' and 'we all' and 'they', and tell what you have experienced, not what you've been taught in a second hand way. I've fallen into this trap too and find it better to say, "I have my dark selfish side", recognize it and then forget it. Guilt doesn't help me in connecting with god, in fact it makes it almost impossible. It may have far more truth to it.

Isn't saying we have our dark side include me? You commented on the biblical example I used and I was just trying to give you the perspective of the entire book of judges.

What puzzles me the most about your response i've took the liberty of highlighting. Where did I mention guilt? Acknowledging ones limitations/weaknesses and the limitations/weaknesses of others has nothing to do with guilt. I think you have to in order to have a honest world view.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

Well put. We allow many things in the name of freedom and pleasure that are utlimately self defeating both for the individual and society. Then the question is asked "who makes the rules?" To me they ultimately make themselves, that is , in the sense of society continuing on without destroying itself. I love poetry as poets say it so much better...http://www.angelfire.com/tn/plath/103.html

It took me about ten minutes to make head or tale of your poem. I guess I'm not very accomplished at the gentry. It seems to express an inner conflict of someone about to surrender purity for pleasure. I kind of felt left hanging at the end. It never said if the loss was worth the gain.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

It took me about ten minutes to make head or tale of your poem. I guess I'm not very accomplished at the gentry. It seems to express an inner conflict of someone about to surrender purity for pleasure. I kind of felt left hanging at the end. It never said if the loss was worth the gain.

She's not real easy to understand but you've got a handle on it. I had a terrible time with my Eng professor when it came to her stuff. Sometimes I might make a decision and think oh, if I do this who does it hurt? But I realize if we all did it, things would be miserable. I have a tough time seperating inner conflict from a more uh, far-reaching one. And yeah it gives me problems. Plath "solved" her problems by killing herself,another ethical dilemma.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Isn't saying we have our dark side include me? You commented on the biblical example I used and I was just trying to give you the perspective of the entire book of judges.

What puzzles me the most about your response i've took the liberty of highlighting. Where did I mention guilt? Acknowledging ones limitations/weaknesses and the limitations/weaknesses of others has nothing to do with guilt. I think you have to in order to have a honest world view.

You say none of us live up to our ideals and plenty fail miserably. It sounds to me like you are preaching and trying to lay on a guilt trip. If not, my apologies but the churches love in, with preaching sin, gets me to change the channel or what ever's appropriate. I don't need it and I don't like it.

As a person I know said, "I've never been to church so I've never sinned".

I like to think that everyone has a small part of god within them and if we can recognize it, we'd need a lot fewer laws and government intrusions. This is at odds with your idea of 'who we are'.

[missdpuck]

I was raised Catholic with the idea that I was free to make a change (and not be excommunicated from the household) after I made Confirmation. My parents weren't religious, I think their attitude was a combination of looking proper and "uh,in case this stuff is true she's covered" lol. Sin meant being born imperfect, perhaps "guilty" of being human, and maybe that's the guilt Vulcan is referring to. Since shame and guilt are connected i guess ot could be tough to be welcomed by a god who is "shaming" you, but I don't think CB was trying to say that.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

She's not real easy to understand but you've got a handle on it. I had a terrible time with my Eng professor when it came to her stuff. Sometimes I might make a decision and think oh, if I do this who does it hurt? But I realize if we all did it, things would be miserable. I have a tough time seperating inner conflict from a more uh, far-reaching one. And yeah it gives me problems. Plath "solved" her problems by killing herself,another ethical dilemma.

I think we would all be a lot happier if we dwelt on the beautiful more and our losses less. Sorry to here about Plath's ultimate decision.

[Sparks]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Our society hasn't developed a consensus on right or wrong since.

What exactly does this mean? How have we not received a consensus? And why wouldn't our consensus change as our knowledge increases, or as circumstances change? Is absolute consensus even a good thing?

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think we would all be a lot happier if we dwelt on the beautiful more and our losses less. Sorry to here about Plath's ultimate decision.

See! Vulcan was wrong about you...IMO he's attributed a common view of religion (guilt ridden) to your posts.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

You say none of us live up to our ideals and plenty fail miserably. It sounds to me like you are preaching and trying to lay on a guilt trip. If not, my apologies but the churches love in, with preaching sin, gets me to change the channel or what ever's appropriate. I don't need it and I don't like it.

As a person I know said, "I've never been to church so I've never sinned".

I like to think that everyone has a small part of god within them and if we can recognize it, we'd need a lot fewer laws and government intrusions. This is at odds with your idea of 'who we are'.

I think everybody has a moral standard and the complete realization of that standard would be purity. I believe everyone fails to live up to the ideals that they see as being the perfect man/woman. Some lower there standard in order to convince themselves that they are good. These people are lying to themselves. Others give up trying and live as failures in their own eyes. It's amazing how much self pity a person can generate.

I think the best way to live is to recognize your own short comings(sins) and strive to be better. Don't expect to succeed but, find satisfaction in your successes along the way. I'm not a super hero but, I'm not a complete failure either.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

See! Vulcan was wrong about you...IMO he's attributed a common view of religion (guilt ridden) to your posts.

Well maybe I am wrong about him, he seems like a kind individual but his judgement of our fellow human beings doesn't jive with my experience or hope for peace.
And you were right about my opinion of the church's idea of original sin and it's resultant guilt. I think it's hogwash.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Well maybe I am wrong about him, he seems like a kind individual but his judgement of our fellow human beings doesn't jive with my experience or hope for peace.
And you were right about my opinion of the church's idea of original sin and it's resultant guilt. I think it's hogwash.

I did have a slight bit of oddball guilt when I was younger, so I understand what you're saying Vulcan. Shame is a debilitating thing although I didn't get mine from church. I guess the problem is geting people to use that piece of "god" or potential inside them. You can't do it in a state of shame, true.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by missdpuck

I was raised Catholic with the idea that I was free to make a change (and not be excommunicated from the household) after I made Confirmation. My parents weren't religious, I think their attitude was a combination of looking proper and "uh,in case this stuff is true she's covered" lol. Sin meant being born imperfect, perhaps "guilty" of being human, and maybe that's the guilt Vulcan is referring to. Since shame and guilt are connected i guess ot could be tough to be welcomed by a god who is "shaming" you, but I don't think CB was trying to say that.

The shame I was talking about was more akin to peer pressure than to God. Kind of like the shame you might feel by disappointing your favourite aunt. We all want to feel like we belong. At least we do when we see value in the group. When a society has a strong sense of who they are and what is right and wrong it conveys a strong message to its members. if you have positive feelings about your neighbour, your teacher, your police officer you don't want to do anything to break that fellowship. You act to maintain acceptance by the group and are rewarded with acceptance by the group. This is more powerful and much more fulfilling than an authoritarian state.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think everybody has a moral standard and the complete realization of that standard would be purity. I believe everyone fails to live up to the ideals that they see as being the perfect man/woman. Some lower there standard in order to convince themselves that they are good. These people are lying to themselves. Others give up trying and live as failures in their own eyes. It's amazing how much self pity a person can generate.

I think the best way to live is to recognize your own short comings(sins) and strive to be better. Don't expect to succeed but, find satisfaction in your successes along the way. I'm not a super hero but, I'm not a complete failure either.

Sure, we can't achieve perfection 100% of the time but as you seem to say, we can try. For me I do find times in my life, in my day, where I can experience some of this perfection. It's not that difficult since I've learned how. I find it fulfilling but other people might think whatever about me. It doesn't depend on social mores or laws or religion.

Since we're talking about purity, I don't look at it, as in that poem, as a conflict between pleasure and purity. The internal conflict is the loss of purity. To be of one mind is purity and peace.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

The shame I was talking about was more akin to peer pressure than to God. Kind of like the shame you might feel by disappointing your favourite aunt. We all want to feel like we belong. At least we do when we see value in the group. When a society has a strong sense of who they are and what is right and wrong it conveys a strong message to its members. if you have positive feelings about your neighbour, your teacher, your police officer you don't want to do anything to break that fellowship. You act to maintain acceptance by the group and are rewarded with acceptance by the group. This is more powerful and much more fulfilling than an authoritarian state.

yeah. My shame definitely came from a lower source than God. Peer pressure, family, etc.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think everybody has a moral standard and the complete realization of that standard would be purity. I believe everyone fails to live up to the ideals that they see as being the perfect man/woman. Some lower there standard in order to convince themselves that they are good. These people are lying to themselves. Others give up trying and live as failures in their own eyes. It's amazing how much self pity a person can generate.

I think the best way to live is to recognize your own short comings(sins) and strive to be better. Don't expect to succeed but, find satisfaction in your successes along the way. I'm not a super hero but, I'm not a complete failure either.

The first paragraph of this post would've come in handy the other day. We were applying these thoughts to society, but also to personal relationships, which to me also come down to standards and a kind of purity.