Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
It builds character. In the same way as foie gras production.
It builds character. In the same way as foie gras production.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
- Thread starter FreshFish
- Start date
DisplacedCornellian
Let's Go Red!
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
That's a woman!? I guess all Canadians really DO look alike.We tend not to let things rattle us - but that woman clearly is REALLY PO'ed about something!
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
That's why x and y go at each other's throats. I'm suggesting a method to make it not matter, or at least matter a lot less, and that is to try to stick to the merits of a proposal rather than get caught in a discussion of whether the proposal is offered in bad faith or masks hidden motives or whether past behavior indicates the proposer lacks sincerity. This is how nations and business opponents and others who explicitly recognize the competition of their interests deal with one another.
Let me make a quick example. Let's say somebody suggests a flat income tax of 10% with no deductions or exemptions. Now, I wouldn't like that proposal for a variety of reasons. Some of those are borne of my personal distrust of the motivation of that sort of proposal. I'm saying it would be more productive for me to not go down that path but instead say "the results of this proposal would be to shift the tax burden in the following way," and then cite the research that provides the numbers, then say "in my opinion this would be a negative result" and then list my reasons why. That takes motive and proposer completely out of the equation and leaves only the consequences of the proposal. In effect, it treats any proposal as a thought experiment that I pose for myself with no other motive than exploring a possible solution to a problem.
Since we are human, all too human, we will constantly fail at trying to do that (myself especially, since -- and this is a carefully guarded secret -- I tend to be strident), but it is at least a goal.
That's why x and y go at each other's throats. I'm suggesting a method to make it not matter, or at least matter a lot less, and that is to try to stick to the merits of a proposal rather than get caught in a discussion of whether the proposal is offered in bad faith or masks hidden motives or whether past behavior indicates the proposer lacks sincerity. This is how nations and business opponents and others who explicitly recognize the competition of their interests deal with one another.
Let me make a quick example. Let's say somebody suggests a flat income tax of 10% with no deductions or exemptions. Now, I wouldn't like that proposal for a variety of reasons. Some of those are borne of my personal distrust of the motivation of that sort of proposal. I'm saying it would be more productive for me to not go down that path but instead say "the results of this proposal would be to shift the tax burden in the following way," and then cite the research that provides the numbers, then say "in my opinion this would be a negative result" and then list my reasons why. That takes motive and proposer completely out of the equation and leaves only the consequences of the proposal. In effect, it treats any proposal as a thought experiment that I pose for myself with no other motive than exploring a possible solution to a problem.
Since we are human, all too human, we will constantly fail at trying to do that (myself especially, since -- and this is a carefully guarded secret -- I tend to be strident), but it is at least a goal.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Here's another example in which people who already won a significant victory could not be satisfied with winning, and continued to press for more, even after they had already won....and who have now provoked a backlash by pushing too hard too far.
Of course, that is gay "marriage." This whole issue was completely resolved six or eight years ago to nearly everyone's satisfaction....only a few extremists wouldn't settle for a 99% victory and have consequently turned a simple compromise accepted by nearly everyone into a needless contentious mess that easily could have been avoided.
For many people, "marriage" has sacramental, religious overtones. These people are not mean, they are sincere. They are not anti-gay at all, they are perfectly satisfied with civil rights for gays, including "civil unions." Of course, a "civil union" is merely a non-religious "marriage" that merely does not use that word; practically speaking, it is "marriage" in every way except for lack of a religious imprimature.
Had gays merely said, "civil unions mean full legal and societal recognition of our lifetime committed partnership as a couple, great!" this issue would have faded into the background and it would all be "ho hum" by now. Divorce lawyers would be happy with the expanded client base, no one else would care. We'd probably be arguing about gay adoption, but from a situation in which everyone had already accepted the "civil union" compromise.
Here's another example in which people who already won a significant victory could not be satisfied with winning, and continued to press for more, even after they had already won....and who have now provoked a backlash by pushing too hard too far.
Of course, that is gay "marriage." This whole issue was completely resolved six or eight years ago to nearly everyone's satisfaction....only a few extremists wouldn't settle for a 99% victory and have consequently turned a simple compromise accepted by nearly everyone into a needless contentious mess that easily could have been avoided.
For many people, "marriage" has sacramental, religious overtones. These people are not mean, they are sincere. They are not anti-gay at all, they are perfectly satisfied with civil rights for gays, including "civil unions." Of course, a "civil union" is merely a non-religious "marriage" that merely does not use that word; practically speaking, it is "marriage" in every way except for lack of a religious imprimature.
Had gays merely said, "civil unions mean full legal and societal recognition of our lifetime committed partnership as a couple, great!" this issue would have faded into the background and it would all be "ho hum" by now. Divorce lawyers would be happy with the expanded client base, no one else would care. We'd probably be arguing about gay adoption, but from a situation in which everyone had already accepted the "civil union" compromise.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Exactly. The motives don't really matter; only three things should be considered:
> is this a good deal for me too?
> will both of us follow through on our end of the bargain?
> what sanctions do each of us face if we fail to keep our end of the bargain?
Number three is where the relationship between citizen and government is breaking down big-time! The government fails to follow through on its promises, yet faces no adverse consequences as a result.
Exactly. The motives don't really matter; only three things should be considered:
> is this a good deal for me too?
> will both of us follow through on our end of the bargain?
> what sanctions do each of us face if we fail to keep our end of the bargain?
Number three is where the relationship between citizen and government is breaking down big-time! The government fails to follow through on its promises, yet faces no adverse consequences as a result.
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
One of my pet peeves as far as serious problems of the times...the taint of special interest $$$ in politics / elections.
Probably doesn't work for the gay community that wants to be married and also ascribe to the sacramental and religious significance of the institution. I guess I wouldn't lump that entire group into the extremist category. Just as I don't buy all those opposed are not anti-gay.
One of my pet peeves as far as serious problems of the times...the taint of special interest $$$ in politics / elections.
Last edited:
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
that's not a civil issue nor a legislative issue however. We wouldn't be passing laws or having public debates.
In a funny way, it reminds me of a joke made by Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon and Ford about birth control and Pope Paul VI. He said, "you no playa the game, you no make-a the rules." There was quite an outcry over that one.
There's something like 300 million people in this country, 0.<strike>00</strike>01% of the population (what is that, <strike>six</strike> five standard deviations or something ridiculous like that?) is still 30,000 people, and somehow Good Morning America finds each one of them.
that's not a civil issue nor a legislative issue however. We wouldn't be passing laws or having public debates.
In a funny way, it reminds me of a joke made by Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture under Nixon and Ford about birth control and Pope Paul VI. He said, "you no playa the game, you no make-a the rules." There was quite an outcry over that one.
There's something like 300 million people in this country, 0.<strike>00</strike>01% of the population (what is that, <strike>six</strike> five standard deviations or something ridiculous like that?) is still 30,000 people, and somehow Good Morning America finds each one of them.
Last edited:
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Actually this is one of the better points I've read so far in the thread. It may read as simplistic but it covesr quite a bit of ground.
Actually this is one of the better points I've read so far in the thread. It may read as simplistic but it covesr quite a bit of ground.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Fish- you are funny- following the idea that compromise is needed, pretty much all of your specific points are about not compromising with other side.
Your first post indicates that raising taxes is for "appearence" and the only way is to cut. Based on that, raising taxes that the other side wants to do is bad, yet you blame the other side for not being flexible. Odd. All the serious economists I read and hear all say that both cuts and taxed must be addressed.
Then you bring up racism. Sure, inter-racial violence is a problem, but to pretend that racism isn't an issue, and that there's no way that the issue in Florida is racially motivated at all is sticking your head in the sand- bascially saying that "you've got enough, now lets move on". Clearly, there are still a lot of issues that need addressed. Examples can be found all over the country.
And now recently, you bring up gay marriage, calling it "marriage". You seem to think that there are enough solutions that it's not an issue- which I assume you mean civil union. Totally forgetting that "separate but equal" is not equal at all. Words and status DO mean something. I mean, since it's just a word, let them have it?
Basically, you complain that there's no compromise in the current atmosphere, and then pointing out things that you apparently are not willing to compromise over. I would laugh if it were not so sad and true.
Fish- you are funny- following the idea that compromise is needed, pretty much all of your specific points are about not compromising with other side.
Your first post indicates that raising taxes is for "appearence" and the only way is to cut. Based on that, raising taxes that the other side wants to do is bad, yet you blame the other side for not being flexible. Odd. All the serious economists I read and hear all say that both cuts and taxed must be addressed.
Then you bring up racism. Sure, inter-racial violence is a problem, but to pretend that racism isn't an issue, and that there's no way that the issue in Florida is racially motivated at all is sticking your head in the sand- bascially saying that "you've got enough, now lets move on". Clearly, there are still a lot of issues that need addressed. Examples can be found all over the country.
And now recently, you bring up gay marriage, calling it "marriage". You seem to think that there are enough solutions that it's not an issue- which I assume you mean civil union. Totally forgetting that "separate but equal" is not equal at all. Words and status DO mean something. I mean, since it's just a word, let them have it?
Basically, you complain that there's no compromise in the current atmosphere, and then pointing out things that you apparently are not willing to compromise over. I would laugh if it were not so sad and true.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
True.
And recognize that you are part of that group of people who think individually and are selfish. You can't just say that it's the "other guy" who is the problem.... You, like fish, have posted plenty of items that you are not willing to compromise over.
IMHO, far too little emapthy and far too little compromise in society.
True.
And recognize that you are part of that group of people who think individually and are selfish. You can't just say that it's the "other guy" who is the problem.... You, like fish, have posted plenty of items that you are not willing to compromise over.
IMHO, far too little emapthy and far too little compromise in society.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
uh, yeah, that's what I said ahead of time I was setting out to do, I said I would provide some examples in which a failure to compromise when victory was already at hand lead to subsequent resentment and pushback, which caused issues to remain contentious when they didn't need to be.....
so I guess from your comment I followed through and did what I said I was going to do, eh?
You either misunderstood or misremembered...here is what I actually wrote:
I said pretty clearly "over symbolic tax increases or lack thereof" which pretty clearly implicates both sides in an even-handed way. Neither the Dems nor the Reps are bargaining in good faith. The Reps are unrealistic in taking revenue increases off the table and the Dems are being disingenuous when they pretend that taxes only on the rich have to go up. Then, after nearly everyone's taxes are raised (that's where the money is, nothing less will be enough); and even when that is nowhere what we need, we also will have to cut the rate of growth of spending too. It is inevitable, the only question is how and when.
What we really need is real growth in the economy. We don't have to literally "cut" spending in absolute terms (except perhaps on a one-time basis); we certainly have to bring the rate of growth in spending in line with the rate of growth in the economy. That's what "sustainable" means, by definition. So if you compare what you said about what I wrote with what I actually did write, side by side, you see that what you thought you read was not what I wrote at all.
Also, please explain to me how we don't already have millions upon millions of civil unions already in place for centuries all across this country? Have you been married or participated in a marriage? You get a marriage license from a civil agency, and even if you are married in a religious ceremony, you still file a marriage certificate with a civil agency. Many people are actually married in a courthouse, which is 100% a civil union.
We already have civil unions! Perhaps you just did not know that, or perhaps you overlooked that? Please, explain to me how existing civil unions (which today are limited to heterosexual couples over the age of consent), that are filed in every county or city clerk's office in every county or city in every state of this country for the past 200 years or more, if you open them up to gay people too, how is that not everything they want and dreamed of? Civil unions ARE marriage in every meaning save the sacramental one.*
So what's the fuss about? Purely the sacramental part, and nothing more! and that's not a civil issue, it's a first amendment issue. It's just when people get really emotional they get confused and can't think straight. It is exactly like the scene in Gulliver's Travels in which they fight a war over which end of the soft-boiled egg to crack open.
You cannot distinguish between existing civil unions and marriage because that is exactly how the state recognizes marriage in the first place. A civil union is not a compromise, it is already a total and complete and 100% victory, as far as the state is concerned. To insist that 100% victory is not enough comes across to some people as rubbing their noses in it. I don't feel that strongly about it myself one way or the other, yet I also know that it causes many people on both sides considerable anguish, and that anguish is genuine. I resent the suffering endured/inflicted by both sides and I am impatient too with both sides for continuing to feud about it.
* and what happens when you want to dissolve a marriage? you go to civil court to get a divorce decree and file it with the clerk, too!
uh, yeah, that's what I said ahead of time I was setting out to do, I said I would provide some examples in which a failure to compromise when victory was already at hand lead to subsequent resentment and pushback, which caused issues to remain contentious when they didn't need to be.....
so I guess from your comment I followed through and did what I said I was going to do, eh?
You either misunderstood or misremembered...here is what I actually wrote:
I said pretty clearly "over symbolic tax increases or lack thereof" which pretty clearly implicates both sides in an even-handed way. Neither the Dems nor the Reps are bargaining in good faith. The Reps are unrealistic in taking revenue increases off the table and the Dems are being disingenuous when they pretend that taxes only on the rich have to go up. Then, after nearly everyone's taxes are raised (that's where the money is, nothing less will be enough); and even when that is nowhere what we need, we also will have to cut the rate of growth of spending too. It is inevitable, the only question is how and when.
What we really need is real growth in the economy. We don't have to literally "cut" spending in absolute terms (except perhaps on a one-time basis); we certainly have to bring the rate of growth in spending in line with the rate of growth in the economy. That's what "sustainable" means, by definition. So if you compare what you said about what I wrote with what I actually did write, side by side, you see that what you thought you read was not what I wrote at all.
Also, please explain to me how we don't already have millions upon millions of civil unions already in place for centuries all across this country? Have you been married or participated in a marriage? You get a marriage license from a civil agency, and even if you are married in a religious ceremony, you still file a marriage certificate with a civil agency. Many people are actually married in a courthouse, which is 100% a civil union.
We already have civil unions! Perhaps you just did not know that, or perhaps you overlooked that? Please, explain to me how existing civil unions (which today are limited to heterosexual couples over the age of consent), that are filed in every county or city clerk's office in every county or city in every state of this country for the past 200 years or more, if you open them up to gay people too, how is that not everything they want and dreamed of? Civil unions ARE marriage in every meaning save the sacramental one.*
So what's the fuss about? Purely the sacramental part, and nothing more! and that's not a civil issue, it's a first amendment issue. It's just when people get really emotional they get confused and can't think straight. It is exactly like the scene in Gulliver's Travels in which they fight a war over which end of the soft-boiled egg to crack open.
You cannot distinguish between existing civil unions and marriage because that is exactly how the state recognizes marriage in the first place. A civil union is not a compromise, it is already a total and complete and 100% victory, as far as the state is concerned. To insist that 100% victory is not enough comes across to some people as rubbing their noses in it. I don't feel that strongly about it myself one way or the other, yet I also know that it causes many people on both sides considerable anguish, and that anguish is genuine. I resent the suffering endured/inflicted by both sides and I am impatient too with both sides for continuing to feud about it.
* and what happens when you want to dissolve a marriage? you go to civil court to get a divorce decree and file it with the clerk, too!
Last edited:
brookyone
Deport Right Wing Nuts
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
I guess it's probably a contrary concept of victory...at the heart of some of the continued contention.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
that is very well-put. I like that, very much.
"victory" in winning the contest vs "victory" in a struggle to stay "on top" that never ends......
the first is defined by the achievement of a specific goal, while the second is always relative to the subordinate position of the other.....
very insightful. Thank you.
that is very well-put. I like that, very much.
"victory" in winning the contest vs "victory" in a struggle to stay "on top" that never ends......
the first is defined by the achievement of a specific goal, while the second is always relative to the subordinate position of the other.....
very insightful. Thank you.
St. Clown
Ideas Posted are Likely Not My Own
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
Oh, the number of ways that woman could shoot me down...
I would prefer the adoption of civil unions for all state government documents, allowing religious institutions to maintain marriage as something sacred, applied to their holy this or that.
Oh, the number of ways that woman could shoot me down...
I sincerely believe that this has led to a number of issues. It even goes into the heart of so many marriages failing (not all failed marriages are caused by this, but I'd wager a good majority are). People acting selfishly without giving thought to their spouses which then create a split. This then leads to children being raised with parents competing for affection, trying to be buddies with the kids and not acting as parents.
You can tell in the glasses. No self-respecting man would wear those glasses. Otherwise you're correct, they do all look the same. That's why so many confuse Sydney Crosby for a woman.
What I get out of this is that you're asking gay couples to acquiesce to a new induction of separate-but-equal. That road does not lead to a healthy country and we've seen that already. You create one set of couplings that state recognizes as marriages, and another of state recognizes as civil unions and it will lead to some unforeseen troubles. Either the states need to adopt the term "married" in a non-religious capacity to be applied to all citizens who sign the necessary documents and take part in some sort of bonding ceremony, or it needs to drop the term "married" from all legal matters and replace it with the term "civil union," regardless of the application to homo couples or hetero couples.
I would prefer the adoption of civil unions for all state government documents, allowing religious institutions to maintain marriage as something sacred, applied to their holy this or that.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
No to the first, yes to the second. We have had civil unions for heterosexual couples above the age of consent for hundreds of years. We merely extend them to same-sex couples. There is no "separate-but-equal" about it.
No to the first, yes to the second. We have had civil unions for heterosexual couples above the age of consent for hundreds of years. We merely extend them to same-sex couples. There is no "separate-but-equal" about it.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
This, and a whole lot more. It really is challenging in America to not be caught up in the societal tide of just being me-focused and fixated on trying to have a good time and being entertained. A lot of the stuff that makes life meaningful and satisfying long term requires sacrifice and putting others ahead of yourself, especially short term.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
The war on the family is consumerism. To the extent that parents can manage that -- killing the TV, resisting the pressure to buy their kids every piece of technological garbage that's force fed down their throats, banning phones during family time, and all along withstanding the withering assault of eye rolling and obnoxious remarks from their teens -- they've protected their family from the predatory commercial culture that surrounds us.
Families that are organized around religion have figured this out and have a natural immune system. We secularists have yet to get our act together and figure out an overarching strategic orientation to get that crap out of our homes, so we're left inventing tactics day to day.
The war on the family is consumerism. To the extent that parents can manage that -- killing the TV, resisting the pressure to buy their kids every piece of technological garbage that's force fed down their throats, banning phones during family time, and all along withstanding the withering assault of eye rolling and obnoxious remarks from their teens -- they've protected their family from the predatory commercial culture that surrounds us.
Families that are organized around religion have figured this out and have a natural immune system. We secularists have yet to get our act together and figure out an overarching strategic orientation to get that crap out of our homes, so we're left inventing tactics day to day.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
I generally agree. We got rid of our tv a little over a year ago, and rarely miss it (though it would have been fun to have to watch the EPL on sunday!). Lots of other good stuff to do like go to the park, read books together, watch an occasional movie, bike rides, etc. To me it's kind of a chicken and egg thing, with rampant consumerism, decline of the nucular family, etc. all happening at the same time and it being hard to define what causes what when it probably all influences each other.
Re: The Most Serious [x] Problem We Face Today
I'm with you on the seriousness of gadget consumerism. One example of the evil effects: I have to manage student employees and it drives me nuts that they can't work or do anything without musical plugs jammed into their earholes 24/7. Conversation is impossible. I won't even go into texting and driving/walking/classroom "learning"/etc. I tell you what. Then they go on yer lawn...
I'm with you on the seriousness of gadget consumerism. One example of the evil effects: I have to manage student employees and it drives me nuts that they can't work or do anything without musical plugs jammed into their earholes 24/7. Conversation is impossible. I won't even go into texting and driving/walking/classroom "learning"/etc. I tell you what. Then they go on yer lawn...