- Joined
- Jul 25, 2011
- Messages
- 12,879
- Reaction score
- 2,707
- Location
- New England
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Ironic that you post this while living in the United States.
first comes the understanding of social justice ,then economic justice follows it...Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.
Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?
Only because my search for that Moralistic, Second or Third-World nation has not yet yielded sufficient results to allow me to relocate, Gipper. Nor have I been able to lay my hands upon a time machine in order to send myself back to the 12th or 13th Century where I would prefer to be.
I could suggest gaining morbid obesity to get on disability, and find a basement somewhere to live in while playing Dungeons and Dragons for most of every waking day. Escapists tend to do such things as this.
There are plenty of places on earth that resemble the 12th or 13th century. Bring a sword, you'll be needing it.
Interesting question. I would vote for the economic justice. Economic justice benefits everybody. Social justice, while certainly noble, positively affects only a relative few. To me it's just a simple unemotional hierarchy.Let's say you are (as I am) a fervent supporter of gay rights. You study on the candidates and conclude that while Candidate A will frustrate your social justice goals, he or she will bring the economy back into balance.
Which way will you vote? Economic justice or social justice?
Unfortunately I live in one, though thankfully in an area of the Communistwealth where it is not terribly prevailant. I do go out of my way to try and avoid places where morality and values are not strongly enforced; but in this area of the country it's not very easy.
i would go with the economy,its best to fix major problems.now ssm and abortion are common issues used to divide people and distract them so they dont focus on the big issues so much.both of those issues have nearly a split base of support,no matter which side you support the other sides pissed off,but the fighting between the two sides keeps people from paying attention to core issues of politicians.
The Tigger seems to be horribly over-re-acting to something so very few do. SSM does stretch my tolerance to the MAX, but I will survive and I will travel as I see fit...We are responsible for the world we live in, but we are only guilty of the things we could have changed.
I understand. I've drawn several of those lines myself. It just strikes me as remarkably petty and intolerant to draw such a line over an issue that does not prevent you from acting morally-- gay marriage doesn't interfere with your marriage and your family, so it seems that you should be perfectly capable of staying in the country and fighting (by lawful means) for the repeal of laws you consider immoral.
There's only six of them so far. I've got states I can't drive through, either; it isn't that hard if you take your moral values seriously enough.
I don't know if you really understand what you're saying you want, but it sounds an awful lot like a Sharia law -type place. If that's what you like, then it's no skin off my nose, but where morality and values are strongly enforced, you end up without freedom. To each his own.........
I personally prefer a set of laws designed to prevent encroachment on the rights of each other, and to let people live the way they see fit, as long as they aren't causing harm to others.
Tigger, my boy, the color does not rub off.When you continue to allow for the election of people who cannot or will not act and legislate in a moral manner, you are responsible for their actions and legislation. When you fail to call the cops every time you see a drug deal going down or other crime being committed, you become responsible for those actions. I could go on, but I won't waste either of our time.
Tigger, my boy...
The color does NOT rub off
The homosexual married or not is not a threat.
Fear and ignorance are.
Unfortunately I live in one, though thankfully in an area of the Communistwealth where it is not terribly prevailant. I do go out of my way to try and avoid places where morality and values are not strongly enforced; but in this area of the country it's not very easy.
Only true to a certain degree Viktyr. We're guilty of not changing a lot of things that we should, because doing so would not be easy, pretty, or polite.
Well, I can be a very petty and intolerant guy. When the State of New York imposed their Same Sex Marriage Right last year, I canceled a trip that would probably have put $500-600 in the pocket of their hotel and restaurant industry, nevermind the secondary markets. I actually sent a letter to the heads of their legislative bodies informing them of the reason I was canceling my stay. Instead I drove out for the one day I needed to be there and drove back that night (about an 18-20 hour day overall) instead of going out a couple days early and staying at least one day later.
I've got more than a few which I can't drive through for LEGAL reasons, nevermind the morals and values issues.
Yes, I understand exactly what I'm saying. It is not far off from Sharia Law. Freedom and Liberty are not things I believe should be Rights but rather Privileges, for those who have proven they can live within the proper restraints of society.
While that's a great idea, the problem is that the vast super-majority of human beings are too immoral and stupid to do the Right Thing without it being forced upon them.
Tigger, my boy, the color does not rub off.
Hrm... That's not "very conservative" as your official leaning suggests, that's fascism and totalitarianism, bro.
Of course. However, I see a distinction between the terms Right Wing and conservative. But I guess there's no selection on DB for very very very right wing so I see your point.Authoritarianism and Fascism are the Extreme ends of the Right Wing/Conservative spectrum, Alpaca.
Of course. However, I see a distinction between the terms Right Wing and conservative. But I guess there's no selection on DB for very very very right wing so I see your point.
Regardless the noble sounding rhetoric, they are only privileges.Freedom and Liberty are not things I believe should be Rights but rather Privileges,...
Hrm... That's not "very conservative" as your official leaning suggests, that's fascism and totalitarianism, bro.
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve")[1] is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to "the way things were".Conservatism is more or less defined by the degree of social authoritarianism in a philosophy.
That is subjective, at best. I would sooner turn to Newton's 1st law.The maintenance of traditional social institutions requires the initiation of force-- whether it is heavy-handed force like criminal law or soft-touch force like tax incentives.
Historically speaking, people having less rights means the goverment has more power, and I've yet to find a government that has voluntarily released power.Economic power is social/political power.
I think with just a focus on social equality it turns into an instance where those without political or economic power are dependent on those with the power to "give" them rights.
When more economic equality is reached everyone has power to petition and fight for their own rights.
Historically speaking, people having less rights means the goverment has more power, and I've yet to find a government that has voluntarily released power.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?