A Question to Americans (Political)

[honeybunch]

wrong, the goal of the republican party is to keep traditional moral values part of mainstream america

And this is a good thing?

A hundred and fifty years ago, "traditional moral values" would have meant continuing to deny women the right to vote. A hundred years ago, "traditional moral values" would have meant upholding longstanding anti-miscegenation laws, preventing mixed race sex and marriage. Today, it means preventing same-sex marriage and giving teenagers abstinence-only sex-ed.

Tradition is not inherently good. Some countries still maintain traditional moral values that allow for legal atrocities, such as Middle Eastern countries where a woman may still be forced to marry her rapist under the law. FYI, there's actually a similar clause in Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. That is a traditional moral value of mainstream Morocco. Does that mean it should be defended and protected?

Now, America's current laws are not nearly as harmful to individual rights and freedoms as those of Morocco. But they are still denying people freedom of choice in the name of tradition and some sort of religious or gut morality, just like the Moroccan law. Obviously, "traditional moral values" do not necessarily make good laws.

If you think that gay marriage should be illegal, or that high school students should only be taught about abstinence in sex-ed, then go ahead and make those arguments. Just don't try to justify your position by citing traditional moral values, because those can justify anything. And don't try to tell me that Republican politicians upholding traditional moral values is a good thing, because it often isn't. It depends on what those values are. Generally, the traditional moral values that Republicans like to talk about are not worth defending.

 

[El Dwarfio]

SNIP

You see, Americans are scared of change, you have to remember that we are the greatest country in the wurld and as such why would we need to change anything?

Those days are over, there are dozens countries better than the US.

Of course it also depends on what you want in life.

_____

By the way two-party political system sucks. And Hondt voting system too. If you want fairer election why not trying the borda system? That way minor parties would get more points.

Text is a terrible medium for sarcasm...

Although to your credit you managed to get all my points without getting my point at all

 

[ShadowStar42]

>Emphasis on small government (see conservative budgeting philosophy)

Except when it comes to regulating women, gays, mexicans, etc.

To quote The West Wing. Republicans want government to be just small enough to fit into your bedroom.

 

[Jegsimmons]

wrong, the goal of the republican party is to keep traditional moral values part of mainstream america

And this is a good thing?

A hundred and fifty years ago, "traditional moral values" would have meant continuing to deny women the right to vote. A hundred years ago, "traditional moral values" would have meant upholding longstanding anti-miscegenation laws, preventing mixed race sex and marriage. Today, it means preventing same-sex marriage and giving teenagers abstinence-only sex-ed.

Tradition is not inherently good. Some countries still maintain traditional moral values that allow for legal atrocities, such as Middle Eastern countries where a woman may still be forced to marry her rapist under the law. FYI, there's actually a similar clause in Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. That is a traditional moral value of mainstream Morocco. Does that mean it should be defended and protected?

Now, America's current laws are not nearly as harmful to individual rights and freedoms as those of Morocco. But they are still denying people freedom of choice in the name of tradition and some sort of religious or gut morality, just like the Moroccan law. Obviously, "traditional moral values" do not necessarily make good laws.

If you think that gay marriage should be illegal, or that high school students should only be taught about abstinence in sex-ed, then go ahead and make those arguments. Just don't try to justify your position by citing traditional moral values, because those can justify anything. And don't try to tell me that Republican politicians upholding traditional moral values is a good thing, because it often isn't. It depends on what those values are. Generally, the traditional moral values that Republicans like to talk about are not worth defending.

blah blah blah, go whine somewhere else. besides the fact that marriage and other things shouldn't even have been defined by the government until someone said it was and there is nothing wrong with traditional values of self responsibility and some morals so people are not stuck in a nation of jersey shore self entitles twats, to say that something is not worth defending is completely opinion in nature, apparently enough people find these worth defending enough to vote republicans in.
also i think your seeing the term 'traditional value' a little too narrowly, it could mean from human rights of defending ones self, home and nation to securing a recognition and right to religion.
Quite frankly, half the things liberals fight for i don't see even worth bringing up in a discussion.

 

[Something Amyss]

Additionally, Obamacare doesn't even provide health coverage in a similar manner to other socialized medicine programs, at least as I understand them.

And you can thank conservatives for that, as they were the ones who bullied actual socialised medicine off the table.

Hooray!

 

[honeybunch]

blah blah blah, go whine somewhere else.

Hahaha, man. I bring up valid counterarguments, and you decide that the proper way to respond is mockery? I'm sure that will convince everyone in this thread to take Republicans seriously.

Honestly, this kind of tactic is not going to convince anyone who isn't already on your side. I don't know if you were trying to get me mad or sidetrack me or whatever, but frankly it just makes you (and by extension your side of the argument) look bad.

I guess I should have expected something like this from you, given what you said in your first post. "(also, for anyone about to pull a 'no true scotsman', shut up.)" That's the kind of debating tactic I'd expect to see from some middle school or maybe even elementary school kid. "Shut up" is not a valid debating tactic.

besides the fact that marriage and other things shouldn't even have been defined by the government until someone said it was

Well, I'm pretty sure you're not in line with most of the Republican party there. The "sanctity of marriage" is one of the major "traditional moral values" that the bulk of the Republican party seeks to uphold. I might actually agree with you that the government doesn't need to be involved in defining or legislating marriage, but the Republican party as a whole would certainly not agree.

and there is nothing wrong with traditional values of self responsibility

I actually agree that the Republicans, by and large, focus more on self responsibility than the Democrats. I personally support some social welfare programs, so for me this is not necessarily a positive.

and some morals so people are not stuck in a nation of jersey shore self entitles twats

So you think that the government should somehow legislate morality? How would it do that? How does it decide which morals deserve laws and which do not?

Frankly, I don't think the government has any role in determining morality except that it should prevent anyone from causing physical or severe emotional harm to any of its citizens. Other than that, it should butt out.

to say that something is not worth defending is completely opinion in nature, apparently enough people find these worth defending enough to vote republicans in.

Yup. Completely opinion.

That doesn't make me wrong.

Benjamin Tillman was a racist and white supremacist and a vocal proponent of the Jim Crow laws. To say his views are not worth defending is completely opinion in nature. Apparently enough people find them worth defending that they voted him Senator of South Carolina from 1895 up until his death in 1918.

Just because a lot of people support a position doesn't make it right, or even

also i think your seeing the term 'traditional value' a little too narrowly, it could mean from human rights of defending ones self, home and nation

Well, I don't see either side arguing that those rights don't exist. They're mostly arguing over how careful we should be with the tools that they're protected with. In other words, gun laws and military funding. And even then, neither side is arguing that we should ban firearms or eliminate the military. And I'm damn sure that the Democrats are not arguing that people should not have the right to defend themselves, their homes or their nation. So this seems to me more an issue of methods than one of actual rights. Or "traditional moral values", I guess.

to securing a recognition and right to religion.

Please explain to me how Republicans are better on this issue than Democrats.

Quite frankly, half the things liberals fight for i don't see even worth bringing up in a discussion.

That is an opinion. Therefore, by your own logic, I am free to totally and utterly ignore it.