|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
8 polls ..how moralistic are you?...
#3416276 - 11/27/04 03:20 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
the nation ..
Quote:
On the other hand, the strict-father family model assumes that evil and danger will always lurk in the world, that (1)life is difficult, that there will always be winners and losers and that (2)children are born bad--they want to do what feels good, not what's right--and have to be made good. A strict father is needed to protect and support the family and to teach his kids right from wrong. (3)That can be done in only one way: punishment painful enough that, to avoid it, children will learn the internal discipline necessary to be moral. (4)That discipline can also make them prosperous if they seek their self-interest and no one interferes. Mommy isn't strong enough to protect the family and is too soft-hearted to discipline the children. That's why fathers are necessary.
Quote:
Apply this, via metaphor, to the nation: We need a strong President who knows right from wrong to defend the nation. (5)Social programs are immoral because they give people things they haven't earned and so make them undisciplined--both dependent and less able to function morally. (6)The prosperous people are the good people. Those who are not prosperous deserve their poverty. (7)Taxes take away the rightful rewards of the prosperous. Wrongdoers should be punished severely. Government should get out of the way of disciplined (hence good) people seeking their self-interest. The President is to be obeyed; since he knows right from wrong, his authority is legitimate and not to be questioned. In foreign policy, he is also the absolute moral authority and so needs no advice from lesser countries.
http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/strategic/nationasfamily/sfworldview ..
Quote:
Taxes: The best citizens are those who are successful and moral, and should be rewarded with lower taxes. Taxes beyond the minimum needed for government take away from the good, disciplined people the rewards they have earned and spend it on those who have not earned it and so do not deserve it. (8)Progressive taxation is seen as a punishment for being a good person, and so is immoral.
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (11/29/04 08:55 PM)
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3417086 - 11/27/04 06:44 PM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Your vote first asks if the voters believe that children are "born bad", then goes on to ask questions which assumed that they answered "yes". Thats a bit leading, don't you think? Question 7 is a bit ambigious. Not all taxation does what is ascribed there, but some does.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
Edited by SoopaX (11/27/04 06:45 PM)
|
Divided_Sky
Ten ThousandThings
Registered: 11/02/03
Posts: 3,171
Loc: The Shining Void
Last seen: 15 years, 9 months
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: SoopaX]
#3418102 - 11/28/04 12:18 AM (19 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I disagree with 5 and 6. Social programs are certainly not immoral, they just don't always pay off in the long run. And nobody deserves to be poor, but people do have some free agency, and often times are responsible for their own success or failure. The rest sounds about right, except I think the part requiring an authoritarian government is a little stretched (for drama I assume). It's good to have somebody principled running the country, but that doesn't mean we should have a dictatorship.
-------------------- 1. "After an hour I wasn't feeling anything so I decided to take another..." 2. "We were feeling pretty good so we decided to smoke a few bowls..." 3. "I had to be real quiet because my parents were asleep upstairs..."
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3422758 - 11/29/04 11:21 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
in bumping the thread..i would like to comment that disagreement on item (6) nearly matches agreement on item (1)..and to me this seems contradictory...if there will always be winners and losers..then it follows that the losers deserve their loss.. ie that those who are not prosperous deserve their poverty...if you disagreed with "the prosperous people are the good people"..then remember who defines "good" and "evil"...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3423044 - 11/29/04 12:56 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Saying "there will always be winners and losers" is not even close to the same thing as saying "those who lose deserve to".
pinky
--------------------
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3423746 - 11/29/04 03:51 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Your entire poll is bias and one-sided. It was engineered to illustrate a point that the author intended to make so no other point is extrudable from the data collected. "Their will always be winners and losers", as someone else said, is a far cry from "Those who lose deserve to". It's just an obvious imperical observation that sometimes people suceed at things and sometimes they don't.
Two situations;
a. If someone is an inventor or a farmer who produces goods or creates some new device, they certainly deserve to be given financial rewards for it which would cause them to be labelled, presumably, a "winner".
b. If someone doesn't try hard to make something of their life, if they drop out of high school, if they don't attend college, if they spend their late teens through their early thirties going from McJob to McJob, if they become or get someone pregnant, the odds would show that they would live a life of paycheck-to-paycheck poverty level existance.
Do you think that person spoken of in situation "a" should automatically be deemed a winner? Many people have invented things, produced things, or led the helm of a great nation, and have not been "winners".
Do you think that the person in situation "b" should automatically be dubbed a "loser", simply because of his lack of financial solvency? If so, is monetery sucess your primary critera for separating the "winners" and the "losers"?
The wording of the question 1 and 6 from the poll you posted shows the answers to these questions that I have postulated. "(1)life is difficult, that there will always be winners and losers " "(6)The prosperous people are the good people. Those who are not prosperous deserve their poverty. "
So here we see that the author can switch the words "good" and "prosperous" and, according to you, they would still mean the same thing. Is that correct or not?
If being "good" and being "prosperous" are the same thing as you and the author state, wouldn't that mean that only people who work hard and end up with money are "good people"?
My final issue with your perspective, still using my aforementioned examples;
If the person from situation A does work hard or use his creativity to benefit all, doesn't he deserve to have some degree of prosperity?
If the person from situation B follows his primal desires and doesn't plan for the future, does he "deserve" to be a bad person, simply because he isn't prosperous?
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: SoopaX]
#3424290 - 11/29/04 05:55 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>> So here we see that the author can switch the words "good" and "prosperous" and, according to you, they would still mean the same thing. Is that correct or not?
thats *incorrect*...i disagreed on item (6)...the purpose of the poll was actually to determine how "moral" the shroomery is..according to the more popular model of morality in america..which neither i nor the original author share...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3424316 - 11/29/04 05:59 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"in bumping the thread..i would like to comment that disagreement on item (6) nearly matches agreement on item (1)..and to me this seems contradictory...if there will always be winners and losers..then it follows that the losers deserve their loss.. ie that those who are not prosperous deserve their poverty...if you disagreed with "the prosperous people are the good people"..then remember who defines "good" and "evil"... "
Do you think that this coincides with your calling my statement "incorrect"? You compared two questions calling their results nearly comparable, yet you don't think that the two opposite conditions listed in each are interchangable?
Do you plan on answering any of the other questions that I asked in my post?
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: SoopaX]
#3424457 - 11/29/04 06:30 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
what i meant by incorrect is your assumption that both me and the original author hold that POV...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3424587 - 11/29/04 06:53 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It seemed that you were the one that drew the connection between "poor" and "loser" and "prosperous" and "winner". Right?
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: SoopaX]
#3424799 - 11/29/04 07:29 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
>> It seemed that you were the one that drew the connection between "poor" and "loser" and "prosperous" and "winner". Right?
i would have thought that paralell was at least implied in the original article..which was meant to be a brief description of US morality..and not the view held by that author or myself...
however..ill admit that my earlier post was short-sighted in that there are conceivable situations where someone doesnt necessarily "deserve" to win..even if they dont cheat...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Mushmonkey
shiftlesslayabout
Registered: 09/25/03
Posts: 10,867
Last seen: 5 months, 9 days
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3427127 - 11/30/04 09:13 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Claiming that financial success is a litmus for being a good person and deserving of reward, and that poverty is deserved by the poor because they are bad people..
man, that's just social darwinism in a snappy new suit. not surprizing, really, as the successful will always want to believe it's because they deserve it because they are good, and will want to try and justify the misfortunes of others to create a distance. You don't have to feel bad for people if you believe they are bad people and deserve to be poor, and that you are well-off because you are good and deserve it.
-------------------- i finally got around to making a sig revel in its glory and quake in fear at its might grar.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3427669 - 11/30/04 12:28 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't like the way number 5 is worded. I think social programs are immoral, but not for the reason given. I am simply against initiating force against peaceful individuals, even for supposedly noble causes. Also, for number 2, I think children need to be taught to be good, but that doesn't mean they're bad at birth. We are born amoral, but not immoral.
-------------------- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
vampirism
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: 8 polls ..how moralistic are you?... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3427693 - 11/30/04 12:35 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
i looked at all the questions carefully, and they all sucked or were dumb questions. I disagreed with every single one.
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: 8 polls ..how moralistic are you?... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3427791 - 11/30/04 12:59 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
I don't really don't get the point of this poll... but whatever.
Questions 5, 7 and 8 are either horribly worded, or just too vague.
For question 5, I don't think assisting the poor is immoral in and of itself. But despite having some strong socialist tendencies, I've always viewed most taxes as being wrong. So if you traced the question's social programs back to those taxes, they could be considered wrong... But maybe that's a stretch.
For question 7, I think most taxation is taking away the rightful rewards of everybody, not just the prosperous. If the question was referring to income taxes, that's different.
For quesiton 8, I think progressive taxation is punishment and is immoral. But it's not punishment for being a good person. So I had to leave that one blank.
Basically, I just found this whole premise silly because it's not the job of the government to follow any 'moral' or 'immoral' guidelines. Aside from honesty.
-------------------- what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3428038 - 11/30/04 02:03 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Are you planning to address the numerous points brought up by myself and others who have had questions about the authors meaning and intent?
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
vampirism
Stranger
Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 8,120
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: SoopaX]
#3428042 - 11/30/04 02:04 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
perhaps you should take that up with the author
|
SoopaX
Criminal DrugAnalyst
Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 1,690
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: vampirism]
#3428052 - 11/30/04 02:06 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Those questions were written by the poster not the author of those blogs that he posted. I'm just assuming here.
-------------------- Jackie Treehorn treats objects like women, man
|
Signo
manamana
Registered: 03/05/02
Posts: 1,949
Loc: Purple Haze
Last seen: 17 years, 22 days
|
Re: 8 polls ..how moralistic are you?... [Re: Annapurna1]
#3431558 - 12/01/04 04:32 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
You have multiple, conflicting statements in most of your polls, making them faulty and unanswerable for the intelligent mind.
-------------------- Correlation is not causation!
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: 8 polls ..george lakoff... [Re: SoopaX]
#3432343 - 12/01/04 11:01 AM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SoopaX said: Those questions were written by the poster not the author of those blogs that he posted. I'm just assuming here.
some morons here dont even bother to read the poll post..let alone the sources..and merely look for an excuse to launch an irrelevant ad feminem attack...unfortuately..however..the ?s were written by the author..and im only asking whether or not you agree with some of his points...
-------------------- "anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (12/01/04 11:52 AM)
|
|