Reality

[shagdrum]

What this means is that they should have used more contraceptives then as it has now cut alot of these unmarried pregnancies you site as examples of failure of sex ed.

That same article goes on...

Such realities have drawn dismissive responses from sex-ed advocates. Incredibly, the horrific trends of the 1970s and 1980s were offered as reason for more sex education.[13] Yet amid cover-ups and excuses, the sex-ed crowd's true motives were exposed in 1978, in of all places, Congress. One committee report noted that despite sex education's stated objective of reducing teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted disease, the real goal "of most sex educators appears to be encouragement of healthy attitudes about sex and sexuality."[14] "Healthy attitudes" is sex-ed code for super-sized libidos in already hormone-ravaged kids.

By the early 1970s, Planned Parenthood and sex educators were already doing what John Goodlad called for in 1971 when the educational theorist wrote, "Most youth still hold the same values of their parents... If we do not alter this pattern, if we don't resocialize... our system will decay."[15] But in each instance in which progressive wisdom has been applied to "values"-based arguments, actions based on the wisdom have caused social decay. Sex-ed wisdom follows the pattern.​

 

[04SCTLS]

It all comes back to that question I asked which you have yet to answer;

Do you think protecting common culture is a worthwhile endeavor or do you think a better culture can be specifically designed?

long standing culture includes an observation of a natural/moral order through social norms, traditions and institutions.

More basically, do you believe that moral relativism is harmful to a society or not?[/QUOTE]


Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

________________________________________________________________

I don't know about designing a better culture since there are always malcontents and unintended unforseen consequences but if you mean tolerating people you morally diasgree with then Moral Reletavism is helpful not harmful.

 

[shagdrum]

I suppose it's the voters...

Then the issue is hardly settled and, at best, you can state what your opinion of the proper place of the church is.

If, as you way, the proper place of the church is community, and the Left is looking to usurp community into a homogenized society (egalitarianism, communism), then there is certainly a role for the church in political discourse. I think it is pretty clear that the Church does a far better job of helping the poor than the welfare state dues.

 

[04SCTLS]

That same article goes on...

Such realities have drawn dismissive responses from sex-ed advocates. Incredibly, the horrific trends of the 1970s and 1980s were offered as reason for more sex education.[13] Yet amid cover-ups and excuses, the sex-ed crowd's true motives were exposed in 1978, in of all places, Congress. One committee report noted that despite sex education's stated objective of reducing teen pregnancies and sexually-transmitted disease, the real goal "of most sex educators appears to be encouragement of healthy attitudes about sex and sexuality."[14] "Healthy attitudes" is sex-ed code for super-sized libidos in already hormone-ravaged kids.

By the early 1970s, Planned Parenthood and sex educators were already doing what John Goodlad called for in 1971 when the educational theorist wrote, "Most youth still hold the same values of their parents... If we do not alter this pattern, if we don't resocialize... our system will decay."[15] But in each instance in which progressive wisdom has been applied to "values"-based arguments, actions based on the wisdom have caused social decay. Sex-ed wisdom follows the pattern.
​

You say Tomato I say Tomatto

Lets remember that the Medium is the Message meaning who is saying it is as important as what is being said.

The good news is it looks like now 2/3 are deciding to abstain from having sex with a partner until 19 as too distractive to their adolescent goals even in light of sex education and media sex advertizing.
However the other 3rd aren't having unwanted babies.

 

[04SCTLS]

Then the issue is hardly settled and, at best, you can state what your opinion of the proper place of the church is.

If, as you way, the proper place of the church is community, and the Left is looking to usurp community into a homogenized society (egalitarianism, communism), then there is certainly a role for the church in political discourse. I think it is pretty clear that the Church does a far better job of helping the poor than the welfare state dues.

It's easier and there's less embarassment ripping off welfare than the Church.
The regular churches do help the poor (some of whom may have been born into unwed poverty due to lack of contraception) but then theres
the scoundrels in it for the money who don't get involved in politics:

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Lifestyles of The Tele-Evangelist... [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Fleecing The Flock. [/FONT]​

[url]http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html#Tele-Osteen[/URL]

 

[shagdrum]

I don't know about designing a better culture since there are always malcontents and unintended unforseen consequences but if you mean tolerating people you morally diasgree with then Moral Reletavism is helpful not harmful.

Actual moral relativists are the most intolerant people around. However, they redefine tolerance to basically mean indifference (and intolerance of any stricter moral standards than they prefer) so you wouldn't know it. the result is a defining down of morals to the point where they are whatever you want them to be. As history has shown, that is a recipe for social collapse.

The good news is it looks like now 2/3 are deciding to abstain from having sex with a partner until 19 as too distraction to their adolescent goals even in light of sex education and media sex advertizing.

Agreed, but the evidence suggests that sex education is irrelevant to that effort or, that trend is happening in spite of sex ed.

However the other 3rd aren't having unwanted babies.

That hasn't been my experience nor what the evidence I've observed has demonstrated. In fact, Charles Murray recently wrote a book documenting the rise in illegitimacy rates in the larger white community and a lot of the subcultural pathologies that have been unfortunately identified the thug culture that is so strong in the black community.

We are seeing a strong class structure developing for really the first time in this country that is happening not along economic lines (though it has consequences in that area) but along differing values. It is quite sad, but the agressive culture war against tradition has consequences.

When it comes from the government, sex ed is almost guaranteed to be value-neutral. But, like effective welfare, effective sex-ed cannot be value neutral. When it is value neutral people plug in the values they want to hear (not a good situation for teenagers to be in). This effectively means sex-ed only enables people to do what they want. But then, this is essentially what sex ed was designed to do...

Most youth still hold the same values of their parents... If we do not alter this pattern, if we don't resocialize... our system will decay.
-John Goodlad, "Report of Task Force C: Strategies for Change," in Schooling for the Future, a report to the president's Commission on Schools Finance, #9, 1971.​

The regular churches do help the poor (some of whom may have been born into unwed poverty due to lack of contraception) but then there's the scoundrels in it for the money who don't get involved in politics

There are always going to be people who game the system. But the smaller the system is, the less prone it is to that flaw. In other words, larger, more alienated systems are more prone to be insulated from consequential feedback mechanisms and more prone to abuse. Political machines have been built around this for centuries. Under the guise of "helping the poor" or whatever other supposed "service" they provide, they never fix the problem but chase the symptom and only enable the problem allowing them a permanent system for political power.

Also, church provided welfare is not value-neutral and can actually help people off of poverty instead of simply enabling them.

 

[fossten]

It's easier and there's less embarassment ripping off welfare than the Church.
The regular churches do help the poor (some of whom may have been born into unwed poverty due to lack of contraception) but then theres
the scoundrels in it for the money who don't get involved in politics:

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Lifestyles of The Tele-Evangelist... [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif]Fleecing The Flock. [/FONT]​

[url]http://www.inplainsite.org/html/tele-evangelist_lifestyles.html#Tele-Osteen[/URL]

The worst televangelist is a PIKER compared to the 'scoundrels' that you voted for.

A televangelist tries to trick you into DONATING your money.

A politician just CONFISCATES it.

 

[04SCTLS]

The worst televangelist is a PIKER compared to the 'scoundrels' that you voted for.

A televangelist tries to trick you into DONATING your money.

A politician just CONFISCATES it.

Would you rather have mobsters running things instead of politicians.
They would be rougher and outgun you like Mexico.
Politicians are a fact of life like death and about as pleasant.
I didn't vote for Bummer.
However,
New York is a Blue state and
I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Duh! woefully uninterested and underinformed on past and current events Pardon the turkey Ginger (from Gilligan's Island) Palin.

It just defied common sense to take her as a serious candidate for VP on her pride in ignorance.

After all the intense tutoring and time past since 2008 and handholding and bootlicking by FOX NEWS and other shills she still hasn't said anything interesting or thoughtful that someone else hasn't already said or that would be worthy of serious discussion.

The scoundrels you prefer want to spend it all on Military Welfare for the worthy and
p!ss it away on stupid sh!t like the F35 Fighter, the latest White Elephant small dick ego compensator typical of the military commitee cost is no object mindset that as the most expensive military program ever threatens to boondoggle the whole defence dept that IMO needs to be cut in half or at least by a third of it's size due to make work and examples of "brilliance" such as this.

[URL="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&sclient=psy-ab&q=f+35+white+elephant&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&oq=f+35+white+elephant&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...2759.18573.0.18993.19.19.0.0.0.0.173.2261.2j17.19.0...0.0.pTeJ3Br3Dtw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b4ee6b7f95275a5e&biw=1024&bih=583"][url]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&sclient=psy-ab&q=f+35+white+elephant&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&oq=f+35+white+elephant&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...2759.18573.0.18993.19.19.0.0.0.0.173.2261.2j17.19.0...0.0.pTeJ3Br3Dtw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b4ee6b7f95275a5e&biw=1024&bih=583[/URL]

This plane has too many purposes and does none of them particularly well and should be terminated now because it is overwrought mediocre cr@p, a Turd Blossom.

[/URL]

 

[hrmwrm]

The worst televangelist is a PIKER compared to the 'scoundrels' that you voted for.

A televangelist tries to trick you into DONATING your money.

A politician just CONFISCATES it.

wow. crawled outta your bunker.
a POLITICIAN doesn't confiscate any money.
they just work for the place that does.
and all the crap the "tax free donations" are used for hardly justify themselves as charity. everybody pays for their crap when it's not taxed.

spending nearly $30 million every year on its television ministry

Buckets of money -- over $43 million a year gets collected in the church, another $30 million or so comes in the mail.

renovated the new campus at an estimated cost of $95 million.

etc. and so on it goes. a lot of charity there. they build castles and pay nothing in taxes.

 

[shagdrum]

a POLITICIAN doesn't confiscate any money.
they just work for the place that does.

Really?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises​

and all the crap the "tax free donations" are used for hardly justify themselves as charity. everybody pays for their crap when it's not taxed.

Yeah, it's not like the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Nor have churches ever had any positive influence in their communities or a history of helping the poor.

Your axe grinding is ignorant and tiresome.

 

[hrmwrm]

Yeah, it's not like the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Nor have churches ever had any positive influence in their communities or a history of helping the poor.

so have many true non profit organizations that don't own castles.what they do as actual charity then could be non- taxable. your defense of greed is ignorant and tiresome.

Really?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises

congress is A politician?

 

[shagdrum]

Nice to see you INTENTIONALLY miss the point...

 

[hrmwrm]

Yeah, it's not like the Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Nor have churches ever had any positive influence in their communities or a history of helping the poor.

and a wonderful history it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system

should i go into the middle ages?

 

[shagdrum]

and a wonderful history it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Indian_residential_school_system

Where is the connection to the point I made?

should i go into the middle ages?

With more dissembling revisionist history? I imagine it would be good for a laugh...

 

[hrmwrm]

Where is the connection to the point I made?

you made a point?

With more dissembling

no. i wouldn't post your version.

 

[fossten]

Would you rather have mobsters running things instead of politicians.
They would be rougher and outgun you like Mexico.
Politicians are a fact of life like death and about as pleasant.
I didn't vote for Bummer.
However,
New York is a Blue state and
I just couldn't bring myself to vote for Duh! woefully uninterested and underinformed on past and current events Pardon the turkey Ginger (from Gilligan's Island) Palin.

It just defied common sense to take her as a serious candidate for VP on her pride in ignorance.

After all the intense tutoring and time past since 2008 and handholding and bootlicking by FOX NEWS and other shills she still hasn't said anything interesting or thoughtful that someone else hasn't already said or that would be worthy of serious discussion.

The scoundrels you prefer want to spend it all on Military Welfare for the worthy and
p!ss it away on stupid sh!t like the F35 Fighter, the latest White Elephant small dick ego compensator typical of the military commitee cost is no object mindset that as the most expensive military program ever threatens to boondoggle the whole defence dept that IMO needs to be cut in half or at least by a third of it's size due to make work and examples of "brilliance" such as this.

[URL="http://www.google.com/#hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&sclient=psy-ab&q=f+35+white+elephant&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&oq=f+35+white+elephant&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...2759.18573.0.18993.19.19.0.0.0.0.173.2261.2j17.19.0...0.0.pTeJ3Br3Dtw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b4ee6b7f95275a5e&biw=1024&bih=583"][url]http://www.google.com/#hl=en&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&sclient=psy-ab&q=f+35+white+elephant&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS419&oq=f+35+white+elephant&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=hp.3...2759.18573.0.18993.19.19.0.0.0.0.173.2261.2j17.19.0...0.0.pTeJ3Br3Dtw&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b4ee6b7f95275a5e&biw=1024&bih=583[/URL]

This plane has too many purposes and does none of them particularly well and should be terminated now because it is overwrought mediocre cr@p, a Turd Blossom.

[/URL]

It's really easy to get you off your point. All I have to do is destroy your point about televangelists, and you wander off whining about fighter planes.

 

[04SCTLS]

You haven't destroyed anything foss saying televangelists are small time hucksters compared to government.
Conservatives say they are determined to cut government and spending
yet p!ss away money on Military Welfare like a big stick to compensate for their weaknesses.
They want something for nothing.
The difference between liberals and conservatives is they want a different something for nothing.

The people who pioneered democracy in Europe and the United States had a low but pretty accurate view of human nature. They knew that if we get the chance, most of us will try to get something for nothing. They knew that people generally prize short-term goodies over long-term prosperity.

People used to believe that human depravity was self-evident and democratic self-government was fragile. Now they think depravity is nonexistent and they take self-government for granted.

People are naturally selfish. But democratic self-government is possible because we’re smart enough to design structures to police that selfishness.
James Madison put it well: “As there is a degree of depravity in mankind, which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”

But, over the years, this balanced wisdom was lost. Leaders today do not believe their job is to restrain popular will. Their job is to flatter and satisfy it. A gigantic polling apparatus has developed to help leaders anticipate and respond to popular whims. Democratic politicians adopt the mind-set of marketing executives. Give the customer what he wants. The customer is always right.

Having lost a sense of their own frailty, many voters have come to regard their desires as entitlements. They become incensed when their leaders are not responsive to their needs. Like any normal set of human beings, they command their politicians to give them benefits without asking them to pay.

Western democratic systems were based on a balance between self-doubt and self-confidence. They worked because there were structures that protected the voters from themselves and the rulers from themselves. Once people lost a sense of their own weakness, the self-doubt went away. It became madness to restrain your own desires because surely your rivals over yonder would not be restraining theirs. This is one of the reasons why Europe and the United States are facing debt crises and political dysfunction at the same time.

It is not the government that is at fault here foss, it is the weakness of human nature we have lost sight of.
That makes us the contradictory creatures we are.

 

[shagdrum]

The difference between liberals and conservatives is they want a different something for nothing.

Liberalism and conservatism are not comparable in that way.

Liberalism is inherently linear. It is all built around the framework of social justice through collectivist means. the only difference is in the degree to which they think social justice can be realized, the forms of collectivism they view as most effective and the degree of ruthlessness with which they pursue those ends. Simply but, the only difference is a matter of degree, ruthlessness and means (in a very narrow sense).

Conservatism, in the same broad since, can only be said to be built around the idea of preserving/improving what works and fixing what doesn't. But what is the primary focus in that effort is very diverse (culture, hegemonic international influence, economic growth, etc). The differences are much greater than in liberalism.

Think of it this way, if Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are both conservative (and in a broad sense, both are), then conservatism is not comparable to liberalism in a broad, general sense.

also, the military welfare complex is not a uniquely conservative construction. It is a combination of both parties (usually among their more moderate members). Dems favor it for the welfare reasons and the GOP favors it for maintaining and promoting national power and national defense.

The people who pioneered democracy in Europe and the United States had a low but pretty accurate view of human nature.

The French Revolution and a lot of the ideas surrounding it were drawn from a different understanding of human nature than the American Revolution. the Americans had a rather skeptical, conflicted and, in many ways, Protestant understanding of human nature. The French (and later Germany and the rest of Europe) were much more idealist.

There is a reason that the Framers were adamantly against democracy while the French were all for it.

 

[Omegaman]

Wow SCTLS, Very interesting that on some levels I can agree with you, However my belief in Christ pulls me to not a formula to get to heaven but to grace. I maybe use organized religion to spread the good word that Christ has for us. That people are listening or care is not for me to decide. However when Christians attribute their own morals or lack of to Christ then problems arise. Very little that has been written of Jesus and his teachings do all of us follow. And as I believe what he had said was written by others there is a overlaying theme of love for all and a distain for overly material tethers to our fleeting existence. If one is to believe, Jesus said nothing of homosexuality and he welcomed those to his table who sinned or were different. That there is a angry God or a jealous God or a loving God is probably beyond the scope of our understanding and to say we know what God has in store for atheists or that God even thinks as we understand thinking to be is rather presumptuous. I tend to think those who profess they know such things are idiots.

 

[04SCTLS]

Christianity would be good if people genuinely practiced it as billed but life is full of contradictory Moral Hazard and the question is how much "sin" you can live with.

 

[hrmwrm]

I tend to think those who profess they know such things are idiots

yet profess god as if real. isn't that rather presumptuous? you don't know of god, yet you know IF god?
isn't this a quote you put up?

" a lie told often enough and loud enough tends to be believed"

 

[Omegaman]

Like I said ....probably beyond your scope of understanding ....have a nice day!

 

[hrmwrm]

sure it is. makes a man from dust, but needs a surrogate for his son.
which is why i don't believe in fantasy. (or mythology)
have a nice day!