<p>I think were missing the real point here: Liberals don't bathe themselves.</p>
<p>I know I am breaking my own rule, but I am going to defend myself.
1) Our evil "protestant" ethic- First off, you are making the West seem like it is only the US, it isn't. I will get back to the US in a bit, but lets look at Europe. This is where protestanism started, and by your logic, this should be the place where the poor are suffering the most. This is blatantly untrue. Europe has the most enlightened social service system in the world. So Protestantism cannot be blamed for the evils done to our poor. So I come back to the US, are we as enlightened as Europe, no. Should we be? Yes. But name a non-western area where the poor are treated better than they are in the US. In Africa the poor starve because the warlords steal all of the supplies and selfishly indugle themselves while their countrymen starve. That is better than the US isn't it? The Middle East has a good idea, one of those pillars of Islam is a donation to the poor. Yet why do we see pictures of the Middle East all of the time where the average day citizen looks in deplorable shape? Why are there incredibally rich sheiks that live in luxery? You can't find a non-western culture (except maybe Japan and Southeast Asia, i dont know enough about their social structure to comment) that treats their poor better than the US.
I know Bklyn is blaming Western Imperialism right now, but this still does not explain it. These practices, or ones similiar to it, were happening long before the West was capable of doing anything imperialistic. Also, if it was imperialism, then these so called superior culutures should have the rich giving to the poor and raising them above the subsistence level.
People being selfish is a human tendency, that is why there are rich and there are poor. Yet only in the West has this selfish tendency started to go away some.
I have more to say about some of Bklyn other points, but I got to go</p>
<p>Bklyn2Cornell, there was one thing that you made clear in this thread--that you're as dogmatic as those you proclaim to oppose, and a bigot.</p>
<p>Sorry to say, but you won't be the type of person to ever persuade me to join your student group.</p>
<p>You try to make the other side out to be demonic, and that's just untrue. I hope for yourself that you learn to be more reasonable in your words--it'll go a long way in letting you give a more compelling argument.</p>
<p>You must come to be more truthful in what you speak, as otherwise the more reasoned in your own group will have to correct your fallacies. </p>
<p>Learn that the useless and baseless arguments only serve to invalidate the actual, truthful arguments because or else all the arguments, logical or illogical, can be dismissed by being lumped together. I do think Bush has made substantial failures.</p>
<p>EDIT: Also, please reply to my previous post. If you have points to concede, declare them as so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me, we have some terrible values in the West, such that especially in the US, our economics is based on the protestant ethic which says poor people shouldnt get help from the government. We value money more than the individual.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bklyn, you logic is completely backwards. Our (The American - the capitalist) system is ALL ABOUT the individual! Welfare - the government taking money from one GROUP to give to another GROUP - is about COLLECTIVE benefits. NOT the individual. Social Darwinism - the "survival of the fittest" - is the most individualistic philosophy/system out there. And that is why it works so well - for some. You seem to be confused a little bit about moral relativism. Not that I have it all down, but let me help you: Since morals take more than one person to establish and are therefore not individualistic, every action that does not harm another person is morally acceptable. If a deed * directly * harms another person, it should be illegal, e.g. murder. But if a deed * indirectly * harms another person, it should be legal, even though it is not * morally * acceptable. That is what freedom is all about, and thank God we're not like Western Europe.</p>
<p>By the way, the founder of your University (who, by the way, wrote out Declaration of Independence,) once said: "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." Think about that one.</p>
<p>-our (10char)</p>
<p>Look, there will be no progress in this discussion. And I of all people am not a bigot, as a gay Russian Jew from Brooklyn, New York, (New York City) the most diverse city in the Universe. I also serve as the Minority and Womens Affairs Coordinator at the University Democrats so please, lets not namecall here. Also, I am a Social Democrat, the likes of Western European social Democrats. Socially Progressive and Economically Progressive. I dont believe in individual freedom with money due to this "natural" instinct that we have known as greed. I am all about personal freedom in terms of personal life but money is a collective entity. We shouldnt deny that we have a bunch of Republicans/Conservatives here lambasting a guy (me) who just wants to recruit some Democrats to the UDems for next year. Theres no point of arguing me. Join the College Republicans if you want to! or the Classic Liberals! And I dont care what Jefferson believed in. I dont agree with his philosophy on economics. He also had a slave as a lover which is still to this day denied at Monticello so he isnt the most uncontroversial of people. </p>
<p>And Social Darwinism is the evil of all evils. Its based on such illogical reasoning. It was disproved many years ago. Lets get out of the 1880s please. Thanks.</p>
<p>In terms of Western Values, What you must understand is what we symbolically stand for on the outside is not what we actually do. Western Europe I think (and since i took a course on this at UVA) is more politically progressive and pragmatic and is less based on "religious" values. There is much more separation of church and state in Europe than the US. Yes, African cultures do many horrific things. It would be nice if everyone thought like us, but it doesnt work that way.</p>
<p>There would be progress if you responded to the actual substances of my post.</p>
<p>Also, you have not disproved anything by citing your student organizations or your upbringing. A person is subject to becoming a bigot across all social backgrounds. </p>
<p>Heck, I'll even make it easier for you. I'll quote you where I believe you're being a bigot, and I'll quote what I posted in response--so you can post ripostes to mine.</p>
<p>You said:
[quote]
We need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible because our presence there is actually breeding terrorists every day. They hate us more and more every day. What Nancy Pelosi did, which was to actually talk to Syria, instead of condemn them uselessly all the time was right. Thats what we need to do.
[/quote]
[quote]
Failure? We ALREADY HAVE FAILED! Our failure is getting deeper and deeper every day. What is so bad about demanding a deadline date for the troops to come home? 2/3 of Americans support the Democratic plan! We need to be focusing our priorities elsewhere in the region and at home?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I responded:
[quote]
Part of the problem I believe is that there's very few people actually willing to negotiate. The leaders of the three main factions will work together and negotiate, but the insurgents won't. We can negotiate with Iran and Syria if we want, but while they may help the insurgents--and I'm not entirely sure they are--they don't control them. Frankly, I think Iran and Syria would rather have a stable Iraq first, then they would probably try and control the government; it's infinitely easier than trying to control an amorphous collection of individuals, which is what the insurgency is right now.
[/quote]
[quote]
Declaring a date and placing restrictions on the money related to it is just flat-out wrong: It hangs the troops out to dry and they're already in a really bad place in terms of equipment and training as it is. The Army simply needs that money--and the Pentagon needs to direct it to the troops and current equipment and away from high-tech toys that would be great for fighting against an actual army, but are lousy for fighting insurgents.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hey, maybe you responded--I swore I read your posts at least once through, but if I missed it, you can redirect me.</p>
<p>I know why you made the topic, but while we're talking about the University Democrats, why not talk about current issues? I mean, student political organizations exist for the purpose of discourse--right?</p>
<p>This post is getting jumbled, so I'll start quoting what I'm replying to from this point on:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Socially Progressive and Economically Progressive. I dont believe in individual freedom with money due to this "natural" instinct that we have known as greed.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Have you taken a course in economics? Perhaps you should. I'm not going to deny the inherent greed accusation, and I don't believe it's necessarily a bad thing. Because market participants are motivated by self-interest, a person might naturally be suspect of market-based societies. But after learning about the gains from trade, the invisible hand, and the efficiency of market equilibrium, you could very well think differently.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He also had a slave as a lover which is still to this day denied at Monticello so he isnt the most uncontroversial of people.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If that's the worst thing he did, he probably is.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And Social Darwinism is the evil of all evils. Its based on such illogical reasoning. It was disproved many years ago. Lets get out of the 1880s please. Thanks.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Letting a government that's -gasp- administrated by individuals who are inherently greedy redistribute income as well as control many aspects of the citizens' lives sounds pretty illogical to me. Did I disprove socialism just right now? Well, probably just about as much as Social Darwinism has been disproved anyway.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Western Europe I think (and since i took a course on this at UVA) is more politically progressive and pragmatic and is less based on "religious" values. There is much more separation of church and state in Europe than the US.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So separated are the church and state, that it'll soon become illegal to criticize one's religion! Not to mention how well they have integrated Muslims into society- Wait, no they didn't. But at least they still stand for freedom of expression- Oh wait, no they don't. But Europe is progressive, right? Are we talking about Germany's higher death rate, France's higher unemployment rate, Poland's higher infant mortality rate, UK's higher poverty rate, Norway's higher suicide rate (heck, most of Europe for that matter), or Europe's increasing crime rates while the US crime rates are falling?</p>
<p>The United States' government is slow in its process for a reason. You know, because we have to regulate the government, otherwise they might be onto the Fifth PATRIOT Act by now. Ya know, that whole governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed thing?</p>
<p>Or we can do it Europe's way. Let Parliament decide the chief executive. Have Prime Ministers be held responsible to Parliament as opposed to the people. But I'm sure you already know all this--you had already taken a class on it. : )</p>
<p>In terms of European religion, Bklyn is dead wrong on the whole more seperation of church and state issue. A couple of countries, such as Sweden, and Norway, have a state-sponsored religion. One does not have to adhere to that religion, but it is still stat sponsored and in my understanding is funded by tax-payer money, along with all of those great social services bklyn wants. It can be argued fairly easily that Europeans are less religious than their American counterparts, which in politics is a good thing. But to blame protestantism for capitalist greed is just wrong.
In terms of me being a Republican/conservative, I guess I am. But two years ago I was on the left and was deeply upset when Bush won his second presidency. Then I heard all of this ant-American talk, blaming America for the worlds problems, and seeing America as the evil of the world. That talk by the left changed me, and it is now very hard to support any Democrat who talks in this way. I think that this is how amievil feels. We are just fed up with it. (Sorry if i am wrong about you amievel)
Two last things at Bklyn: Being a gay New Yorker does not disqualify you from being a bigot. I don't think you are, but you could still be. I don't like throwing names around. That brings me to my second point. You seemed to imply that I am a rascist by saying there are smart people in Asia too and accusing me of thinking that all Asians are dumb. I never said that. All I was saying was that Western culture has seemd to make vastly more improvements and advances than other cultures in the past 500 years. That is unarguably true. African Americans have produced great works of literature in the West, but I don't see any coming from Africa. I am not a rascist at all, but I will admit to being somewhat of a culturist.</p>
<p>"All I was saying was that Western culture has seemd to make vastly more improvements and advances than other cultures in the past 500 years. That is unarguably true. African Americans have produced great works of literature in the West, but I don't see any coming from Africa. I am not a rascist at all, but I will admit to being somewhat of a culturist."</p>
<p>Who is to say that the western culture has made vastly more improvements than other cultures? These are notions imposed on the world by the western civilization. Cultural relativism is key when considering aspects of different cultures around the world. No culture is more superior than others; all cultures live in the 'now' and have distinct ways in which they operate. Works of literature by African-Americans may be popular within America and the Western world. However, they may not be influential Africa. The same goes for works of literature produced by Africans.</p>
<p>So tennis, I ask you this question, what defines culture/civilzation?
I found a definition "Most general, the term culture denotes whole product of an individual, group or society of intelligent beings. It includes technology, art, science, as well as moral systems and the characteristic behaviors and habits of the selected intelligent entities."
Well lets look at this. On one side we have the culture of a cannibalistic island tribe, on the Wetsern culture (only because I know the most about it, but fill in whatever you want). Lets look at the technology. Western culture can prolong life, we know what the universe is made out of, and we are still looking for answers to the questions that we still have. The cannibalistic culture believes eating babies makes you live longer, and since they have been doing this for who knows how long, it must be right. I would say Western culture-1, cannibal culture-0 but you know thats just me, who am I to say eating babies is wrong.
What about art? Western culture has produced magnificent works in many different field. Cannibal culture has produced some bloody rocks. Western-2 Cannibal-0.
Oh but my bad, bloody rocks are just as good as Picasso, eating babies is just as nurturing them, I should have remembered that those cultures are living in the now! So slavery was ok in the US, the southernors were just living in the now, and the Holocaust was great, Nazis were living in the now. I guess I have seen the light.
Seriously, I know my baby eating cannibal example was extreme, but your doctrine WOULD say that our culture is not superior to that one. Your doctrine would also force you to say that current Western culture is no superior to the past western culture that included slavery, it would also force you to say that the Holocaust and things such as the aparteid regime were ok, because no culture is better than any toher.
I verhemently disagree with this. There are universals on which things can be judged, and Western culture seems to be judged in the best light.
Also, some Africans do write. But how can they be that influential on a continet where a majority of the population is illiterate, and has no way to access those writings? Thus Africa produces little to none influential literary works, while Africans in the West produce many.</p>
<p>Q. How do you turn a College Republican into a College Democrat?</p>
<p>A. Bring back the draft (with no student deferments).</p>
<p>well played, MadMarv.</p>
<p>I guess that would cull the weak. lol</p>
<p>But the draft ain't coming back any time soon.</p>
<p>Let's hope you're right, Marlin. See last weeek's Time magazine. Recruitment is way down, the Army is understaffed, people are doing several tours in Iraq, and we are about one war short of a draft (anyone say Iran??). Any number of other troublespots can blow up if we are perceived as too weak. China could go after Taiwan, N. Korea could decide to cause trouble on the border, Cuba/Venezuela could get militarily ambitious in Central America.</p>
<p>I think the first guys to get drafted and sent to the infantry front lines should be Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (sp?) and all the other various "chicken hawk" Vietnam era draft avoiders who decided it was worth risking the lives of young soldiers for their belated macho gratification on a war with no clear justification.</p>
<p>Marv: Your right, Iraq has clearly shown how an all-volunteer army is not up to the task of a long protracted war. It truly is a shame, and something must be done about it, and I personally do not think that required military/civil service is a bad idea for all Americans.
Yet in my view, there is no way that a draft is likely to occur any time soon. The draft is not going to ocur just because of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bluntly, the Democrats would not fund it. I know that there has been legislation thrown around about bring back the draft, but this has been for only anti-war reasons actually. And when these bills came up for a vote, they were soundly defeated. One was 402 against the draft, two in favor. Thus in the current political state, the draft is a null point.
So what if the US gets embroiled in one of those many conflicts you listed? Currently, all the US could do was respond with air and naval forces, but IMO this is all a moot point because we will not get in any of these conflicts. There is not enough political power to get involved in any of these conflicts, except for an airstrike or a similiar limited response. The Dems, and many Republicans faering for their jobs, would not fund any such conflict.
The only way a draft could come back is if something drastic did happen, say Iran nuking Detroit, something to jostle America out of its new found isolationsim, and any such event would also most likely cause patriotism to soar through the roof. This would change the perception of the draft, and thus most would not view it as a horrible thing.
And I really do disagree with you about your second paragraph. Unless you want Mr. Cheney mistaking our young soldiers for quail.</p>
<p>Good point about Cheney. And also, I have to retract Rumsfeld from the chicken hawk list - he served in the Navy. But in his place I nominate Karl Rove.</p>
<p>I hope you are right about the draft. The volunteer military has been a really high morale fighting force. Let's hope Bush and Co haven't ruined it completely.</p>
<p>Rumsfeld can't serve in a war anyway. He has the international community seeking him out to try him for possible war crimes with his suspected involvement in administering the torture of prisoners-of-war in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and other similar facilities. Only way he doesn't get arrested is if he can hide under Bush's smug cloak within America.</p>