Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 46
  1.    #1  
    Ben, you love these two talking points so I thought I'd start a thread whereby you can lead things off with a dissertation on exactly what family values and personal responsibility are? Specifically, I'd love to open up a dialogue as to how far you (and anyone else on this forum) feel our government should go to legislatively impose "family values" and "personal responsibility" beyond the laws that exist today?

    So Ben, do tell? And while you are at it please tell me if and how one party has the moral high-ground over the other in their actions, not their rhetoric? Itís your time to shine Ben.
  2. #2  
    Both political parties have people who respect personal responsibility and family values. The problem the parties have though is that the extremities of the parties are the vocal ones and their beliefs are heard over that of the middle person. Neither party has the moral high-ground.

    Should the government impose family values or personal responsibility? No.

    Ben
  3. #3  
    Family values - I would say family values are teaching your children the right thing to do, mainly by example.

    Personal Responsibility - Owning up to your own mistakes and shortcomings, not blaming anything, anyone, and everything else.

    As Ben said, neither political party have the moral high ground. Both are kind of in the shadow of the moral high ground. Each side has it right on some issues, but wrong on others. It's like they are standing on opposite sides of a mountain, if only they would climb up and meet in the middle.
  4. #4  
    Going further with personal responsibility is growing on your own, not depending on the government for every little extra, not having someone tell you that YOU GOTTA HAVE this or that, that you will never get anywhere without, not blaming everybody because someone is so stupid as to...in other words, not going the Jessie Jackson route. Pride in ones self for what personal accomplishments, not due to a welfare situation.

    Ben
  5. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Both political parties have people who respect personal responsibility and family values.
    Really? To whom do you give your official stamp of approval within the Democratic Party?
  6.    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Family values - I would say family values are teaching your children the right thing to do, mainly by example.
    Agreed. Morality begins at home. Does the structure of the family matter then as long as the children are taught the right thing to do?
  7. #7  
    Very much so, the two are intertwined. Ben
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Very much so, the two are intertwined. Ben
    How so?
  9.    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    ...in other words, not going the Jessie Jackson route. Pride in ones self for what personal accomplishments, not due to a welfare situation.

    Ben
    Please explain? What is the "Jesse Jackson route"? Is he on welfare?

    Do you believe that welfare is required under any circumstances? Or should it be outlawed altogether?
  10. #10  
    Children learn from their elders. As for the Jessie Jackson route - the belief that one cannot do anything without help and everything is someone else's fault. As for welfare, no it should not be outlawed, just not encouraged. Have you ever listened to a Jackson speech?
    Ben
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Have you ever listened to a Jackson speech?
    Ben
    I try not to - I view him as someone on the fringes of the Democratic party. Although I was quite fond of his warning at a Gore rally back in 2000, "...stay out da bushes stay out da bushes".
  12. #12  
    Jackson on the fringes of the Democrat Party? No, Jackson is right there with the leaders of the Democrat Party, but not necessarily with the members of the Democrat party. You ought to listen to him sometime. Ben
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Jackson on the fringes of the Democrat Party? No, Jackson is right there with the leaders of the Democrat Party, but not necessarily with the members of the Democrat party. You ought to listen to him sometime. Ben
    Yes, on the fringes. But go on....what does he have to say? What is it that he says that bothers you specifically? And what is it that he says that you think Democrats embrace?
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Children learn from their elders.
    OK. But that didn't answer my question about the structure of the family? Is it an unwed couple? Is it a single parent?

    Also, since neither party has the moral high ground, what is it about the Dems that makes you think they don't value personal responsibility and family values?

    I'm trying to get you to articulate to me what exactly the GOP does that makes them worth voting for as the party of "family values" and "personal responsibility" but yet they hold no moral advantage or higher moral ground than do the Dems?
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    OK. But that didn't answer my question about the structure of the family? Is it an unwed couple? Is it a single parent?

    Also, since neither party has the moral high ground, what is it about the Dems that makes you think they don't value personal responsibility and family values?

    I'm trying to get you to articulate to me what exactly the GOP does that makes them worth voting for as the party of "family values" and "personal responsibility" but yet they hold no moral advantage or higher moral ground than do the Dems?
    Sometimes they're not worth voting for, so you just go the way of the lesser of two evils.

    As far as personal responsibility and welfare go, there are many people who are on welfare that do not need to be. But since we live in a society of entitlement (I deserve what everybody else has just because I'm alive), they choose to go on welfare or sue somebody for a minor accident. The ricest people in America (notice I didn't include the oil sheiks ) got that way by working hard and saving the money they earned.

    As far as family structure goes, the ideal family would be a husband and a wife who have never been divorced and never cheated on one another.
  16. #16  
    The biggest "threat" to "family values" are divorce and co-habitation without marriage (especially those producing children!). Just look around you and see how common that is, especially among heterosexual white couples.

    Almost all couples at my workplace would fit the above description. In NONE of these cases, can one attribute this to the influence of gays, the favorite wedge issue of the "moral" majority.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  17.    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Musicman247 View Post
    Sometimes they're not worth voting for, so you just go the way of the lesser of two evils.
    But what if one just has more rhetoric than the other?

    As far as personal responsibility and welfare go, there are many people who are on welfare that do not need to be. But since we live in a society of entitlement (I deserve what everybody else has just because I'm alive), they choose to go on welfare or sue somebody for a minor accident.
    So are the oil companies "entitled" to make $50 billion per quarter in profits along with their GOP backed corporate welfare packaged up as tax incentives? Does that qualify as an entitlement? Or are you saying that just the poor that abuse the welfare system (I am not denying the system is abused by some) are the only one's that have such a sense of entitlement? And as a Christian, can you tell me if such entitlements were to be handed out, would Jesus want oil companies that don't need them or poor people that may not need them to have the entitlements?

    The richest people in America (notice I didn't include the oil sheiks ) got that way by working hard and saving the money they earned.
    Really? I thought most of the wealth in the country has been inherited. You know, like George Bush....the good lord knows he couldn't make a penny in any business he ever attempted - he drove them all into the ground.

    As far as family structure goes, the ideal family would be a husband and a wife who have never been divorced and never cheated on one another.
    I know what an ideal family looks like - I also know from experience that I turned out pretty good and mine was far from ideal. That said, I still haven't heard how far congress should go to legislate "family values". Your goal of an ideal family is noteworthy and I teach my kids these very same values every chance I get - but these are my values based on my belief system and morals and I wonder just how far the government should go to impose my views on others?
  18.    #18  
    Hello Ben? Are you there? You're invited to answer my questions and share your views. More details please....
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Ben, you love these two talking points so I thought I'd start a thread whereby you can lead things off with a dissertation on exactly what family values and personal responsibility are? Specifically, I'd love to open up a dialogue as to how far you (and anyone else on this forum) feel our government should go to legislatively impose "family values" and "personal responsibility" beyond the laws that exist today?

    So Ben, do tell? And while you are at it please tell me if and how one party has the moral high-ground over the other in their actions, not their rhetoric? It’s your time to shine Ben.
    I see two philosophical questions here:

    1. What are ideal moral standards?
    2. What is the role of government?

    Per the stated preference to deal with the latter, I will focus there.

    In short, the government should not impose family values. The government should foster personal responsiblity.

    It begins with a belief that we (humanity) are all equals. In so doing we acknolwedge that any social strata that exist in our society result from nurture, not from nature. Likewise, any social "advantage" that exists is a result of some adapting better than others. But, all of us are equally capable of accomplishing, accessing, achieving and acquiring anything. The only limitation is the extent to which each of us is willing to maintain pursuit.

    The role of government is one of convenience, namely delivery of mutually beneficial services such as physical security and conflicts resolution.

    That's the basline for me. To the extent that the members of the society have shared values and wish to maintain them, there can be value in codifying acceptable practices. However, such legislation should be the effect of moral negotiation, not the cause. That is, a ban on adultery, for example, should result from the society identifying fidelity as a the value principle to be maintainined, rather than extra-marital sex as a practice to be maligned.

    The downside of addressing any such matters, though, is that amongst equals there is low likelyhood for unanimity. Thus, debate will be without end.

    In short I believe that morality can not be legislated, and should not be attempted.

    Now, my beliefs are well documented in this forum. So, I'll take an added step of reconcililng this philosphy with the apparent approach of the political active so-called "religious right."

    Yes, I believe the Bible is an excellent source for moral guidelines. I recognize that a read of Exodus and Leviticus seems to present such matters as points of dictum, rather than mere guidelines. However, a read of Deuteronomy, in particular, sets a context for these principles presenting them as terms and conditions of a covenant between a people and their God.

    Without rehashing the rationality of belief in a deity, I can say that I believe any nation that adheres to the principles, whether or not in deference to the a deity, is likely to experience prosperity as measured in health, wealth and happiness. And, as such I promote them in the nation where I reside.

    That notwithstanding, I believe the proper (perhaps even biblical/godly) way to promte such is through social interaction, not state interjection.
    Last edited by shopharim; 05/18/2007 at 10:42 AM.
  20.    #20  
    That notwithstanding, I believe the proper (perhaps even biblical/godly) way to promote such is through social interaction, not state interjection.
    Brilliant! And I am not just saying that because that is my position on the subject.

    So Shop....to what extent are you willing to support that position? Will you vote for those that advocate the advancement of elements of your belief system through social interaction or vote for those that claim they will legislatively impose your views and beliefs on the entire society? And since everyone agrees that neither party holds up as a "moral majority", would it be fair to say that the party that does advocate legislatively imposing such beliefs and morality are in fact only doing so for political gain and not their convictions?

    Musicman, do you agree with Shop? Or do you disagree, and if so, please articulate your position.

    Ben....still waiting for you to jump in. This should be your baby since you love to drop the "family values" and "personal responsibility" bombs on the liberals (or those that you perceive to be liberal....whatever that means).
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions