Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, they would. There were things they did to be ashamed of, but, equally, there are things that we do to be ashamed of, and this turning over of personal responsibility to the government to enforce our will on others is one of them.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and you're not a heck of a lot more enlightened about your blind spots about forcing your will on your fellow man than they were about race relations or the proper place of women in society, for example. It's just that you can see them, and for some reason (perhaps the same reason they had?), you can't see what's wrong in what you're doing as long as it serves your personal desires and prejudices.
Human nature again.
But the question remains, when, exactly, do you think that adults should be allowed and required to take responsibility for the consequences to themselves of their own actions? Ever? Or should they always be protected by laws from having to make a decision about entering, or not, an establishment that allows smoking (or drinking, or spraying pesticide, or whatever), with the government forever acting in loco parentis? If you think that such laws are, indeed, necessary, have you even thought about what that says about your attitude about your fellow citizens?
My whole point was that a lot of the things that went on in my grandparents' time is flat out shaming.
Can I ask one simple question? What do YOU do for a living? I am betting a college professor, or undergrad... or something along those lines. Someone who has the luxury of not having to actually deal with practical affairs. That is to say, I doubt you own a business, create jobs, nor work for a living (in the sense of the sweat of your brow or hardness of your hands means your paycheck). I will gladly apologize if I am wrong...
But how nice, how convenient, how "slick" you can, in this day and age, pontificate on what unenlightened cavepeople your grandparents were! I just bet they would have been very proud of you, reckon?
Yep, if YOU had lived back then, you would have shown them, huh? From the first day those folks showed up from the Old World to the New...I bet YOU would have given those racist oppresors an earful! Sent them back packing. There would have been no manifest destinty, slave-trade, no slavery, sweat shops or mill-towns, nothing but kumbaya? Pass the barf-bags, please...
Quote:
So I don't need a lecture about how this is the "wussification of America" or how all our freedoms are being stripped or how my grandparents would be ashamed. Pullleeease! [/b]
Au contraire...it is YOU who presumes to give a lecture to everyone else. Personally? I find it disgusting and appalling you presume to judge them (and, by extent, any previous generation) by way of the self-righteous, breast-beating, virtues you seemingly claim to posess.
You mistook the meaning of my post. Maybe I wasn't clear and it was my fault. I don't think ill towards my own grandparents or anyone elses. My grandfather was a great man and a WWII vet, I would never think anything negative about him. It's certainly not my intention to insult any specific person from a past generation or their peronal beliefs. I do not think they are cavemen, nor do I think I am a better person than them and would have been a better person in that society.
I DO know, however, that I live in a much more advanced and complicated society than they ever knew. One that has grown and in many ways experiences much more freedom than they ever knew. We also do a lot of things worse than them, but I like our side of the tradeoff. There are plenty of things I admire from generations past . Their idea of selective freedom isn't on that list. I'm totally aware that one day people will think the same about my generation. Don't assume that I believe we are perfect. Far from it. I think there's a perfectly balanced role for both the government and the private sector in our daily lives, and it's a formula that we have yet to perfect in 235 years as a country and probably never will.
Really, I'm just tired of hearing about how anything progressive attempted in this country is an attempt to "destroy America!" If it weren't for progressive ideas in this country, we wouldn't be as free as we are today. It's tired. It's trite. It's old. It's insulting. And it doesn't support your argument.
To answer your question, I am not a college professor. I work for a company in TV broadcasting. I have had many jobs in my life though in both the private and public sector. I have freelanced. Never been a professor.
Quote:
But the question remains, when, exactly, do you think that adults should be allowed and required to take responsibility for the consequences to themselves of their own actions? Ever? Or should they always be protected by laws from having to make a decision about entering, or not, an establishment that allows smoking (or drinking, or spraying pesticide, or whatever), with the government forever acting in loco parentis? If you think that such laws are, indeed, necessary, have you even thought about what that says about your attitude about your fellow citizens?
When it doesn't affect and harm other citizens with equal rights.
Last edited by ClarenceBodiker; 02-10-2011 at 05:28 PM..
So, you're saying that anything that someone does that someone else is of the opinion affects them should be regulated because we're not, as adults, capable of coming to an agreement that serves everyone without Mommy being involved? Really? That's really your attitude towards your fellow human being?
You mistook the meaning of my post. Maybe I wasn't clear and it was my fault. I don't think ill towards my own grandparents or anyone elses. My grandfather was a great man and a WWII vet, I would never think anything negative about him. It's certainly not my intention to insult any specific person from a past generation or their peronal beliefs. I do not think they are cavemen, nor do I think I am a better person than them and would have been a better person in that society.
In turn, I apologize if I came on a bit too strong and brusque. My point was that, just like today, there were good and bad people in every generation. Just because they lived in an era when certain institutions were the norm does not translate into that they were collectively responsible for it. Which, unfortunately, some folks today buy into. On the contrary, they too were products of their time just like we are of ours. No telling what exists today that our own great-grandchildren (or whatever) will disdain.
Quote:
I DO know, however, that I live in a much more advanced and complicated society than they ever knew. One that has grown and in many ways experiences much more freedom than they ever knew. We also do a lot of things worse than them, but I like our side of the tradeoff. There are plenty of things I admire from generations past . Their idea of selective freedom isn't on that list. I'm totally aware that one day people will think the same about my generation. Don't assume that I believe we are perfect. Far from it. I think there's a perfectly balanced role for both the government and the private sector in our daily lives, and it's a formula that we have yet to perfect in 235 years as a country and probably never will.
Well, there is where we part company to a large degree. I believe we live in an age where classical notions of freedom are becoming anachronisms. And it is unfortunate, and we are paying a price for it.
Quote:
Really, I'm just tired of hearing about how anything progressive attempted in this country is an attempt to "destroy America!" If it weren't for progressive ideas in this country, we wouldn't be as free as we are today. It's tired. It's trite. It's old. It's insulting. And it doesn't support your argument.
This is where visions come into play. Just because something flys under the lofty name of "progressive" does not necessarily make it good and desirable. And certainly not when it is mandated by those who pay no personal price for being wrong. There are always unintended consequences. But anyway, yes, many things that float under the progressive label do have the affect of destroying freedoms. And yes, it does support my argument.
Quote:
To answer your question, I am not a college professor. I work for a company in TV broadcasting. I have had many jobs in my life though in both the private and public sector. I have freelanced. Never been a professor.
Ok...then again, as per my offer yesterday, I apologize. I shouldn't have worded it that way in any event. Now then...back to our regularly scheduled program!
Which, in this case, is right in line with what TexasHorseLady says in her posts above. Your (or anyone else's) rights are not being violated if you have free choice in the matter.
Well, if that's the results of a phone survey that I was part of then I question the skew of it.
A few weeks ago I was contacted by Travis County health. They were doing a survey on the health of their residents that was part of a bigger survey. I said ok. There were actually 2 questions on my general health (last time I went to the doctor and last time I went to the hospital). All the other questions were my opinion on smoking in public places. I then asked the girl what kind of "health" survey this was when all the questions were about my opinion on smoking and not MY HEALTH.
The smoking questions were slanted towards your health..like "Do you think your health would be affected by second hand smoke in a park ?"
Just FYI. Be interested to know of others got a phone call with the same type of "health" survey from their county health dept.
There's lies, damn lies and statistics.
If one has an agenda then any poll can be done in their favor if the questions are worded "just right".
Well, if that's the results of a phone survey that I was part of then I question the skew of it.
A few weeks ago I was contacted by Travis County health. They were doing a survey on the health of their residents that was part of a bigger survey. I said ok. There were actually 2 questions on my general health (last time I went to the doctor and last time I went to the hospital). All the other questions were my opinion on smoking in public places. I then asked the girl what kind of "health" survey this was when all the questions were about my opinion on smoking and not MY HEALTH.
The smoking questions were slanted towards your health..like "Do you think your health would be affected by second hand smoke in a park ?"
Just FYI. Be interested to know of others got a phone call with the same type of "health" survey from their county health dept.
There's lies, damn lies and statistics. If one has an agenda then any poll can be done in their favor if the questions are worded "just right".
Exactly. I used to work with people who tried, with the best will in the world, to come up with unbiased questions for things like this. These were questions that would ultimately be submitted for peer review. It was fascinating, from the outside, to read the questions that they truly, truly, truly believed were "unbiased" that so clearly were (and they acknowledged the bias when it was pointed out to them, they just couldn't see the bias from the inside). The other interesting thing was that the peers that would be reviewing them? Shared the same biases and thus the same blind spots to that particular bias.
My job was simply, at that time, to compile the questions into an approved format, and so I had no dog in the fight, and didn't share the same biases, and so the biases in the questions jumped right out at me.
And this is when people are NOT trying to promote a particular agenda. It's MUCH easier to craft questions that will get you the answers you want if you're doing it on purpose!
So, you're saying that anything that someone does that someone else is of the opinion affects them should be regulated because we're not, as adults, capable of coming to an agreement that serves everyone without Mommy being involved? Really? That's really your attitude towards your fellow human being?
Telling, that.
Again, you're running in circles. You can find my answer to this claim you've already tried to make multiple times on other pages. I'm done with this, and for real this time.
Thanks for the civil and lively debate, TexasReb and TexasHorseLady. It's been fun.
I can understand people not being around smoke (if it is actually drifting in their faces). But what bothers me is the cowardice of our public officials to deal with the problem of pet owners.
I work in an office, and all day my nose runs, my eyes and skin itch - because about 1/3 of the people have animals at home, and do not bother cleaning their clothing before coming to work.
This is not an exageration. As soon as I step outside, it all stops.
I actually like dogs and cats - But, like many non-owners of pets, I get a bad reaction to them.
And if anyone suggest my getting shots - Thanks, but no thanks - I'm not the one that should sacrifice anything.
Add to that about 1 million bites per year (many hurting children severely), and the crap that's all around the streets and parks - it's time to start laying some laws down to protect the rights of others.
Why aren't these laws attached to the smoking laws? To protect everyone from all inconveniences, medical threats and damages.
I can understand people not being around smoke (if it is actually drifting in their faces). But what bothers me is the cowardice of our public officials to deal with the problem of pet owners.
I work in an office, and all day my nose runs, my eyes and skin itch - because about 1/3 of the people have animals at home, and do not bother cleaning their clothing before coming to work.
This is not an exageration. As soon as I step outside, it all stops.
I actually like dogs and cats - But, like many non-owners of pets, I get a bad reaction to them.
And if anyone suggest my getting shots - Thanks, but no thanks - I'm not the one that should sacrifice anything.
Add to that about 1 million bites per year (many hurting children severely), and the crap that's all around the streets and parks - it's time to start laying some laws down to protect the rights of others.
Why aren't these laws attached to the smoking laws? To protect everyone from all inconveniences, medical threats and damages.
wow, I have never heard of this before. I don't know of anyone with pet allergies so I have never heard complaints.
what sort of regulation would you suggest and how should it be enforced?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What about controlling pet owners?
