Progressives, social liberals, the left in general are silly and a little bit funny…

[JamesSD]

Meh. Artists are Liberal. Wasn't this discussed already?

Maybe it's just simple economics... no one wants to pay to see Conservative "entertainment"? If you're a Classical Economist (and it's hard to be a Conservative and not be from the Adam Smith school of thought), The Invisible Hand is perfect after all. If media is Liberal, it's because the market wants the media to be liberal.

Or perhaps it's complicated, shades of gray moral issues that make for good stories, and that sort of way of looking at the world is fundamentally "liberal"?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . .the talk of Cerice's AV made me turn on image loading in my browser to see what the fuss was about.

So all in all, kinda worth it.

While it's on look up a Honey post.

 

[angelicminx]

...

Almost forty years ago in the dimwitted state of Kentucky, at a "Teacher's" college, I met a bright young man studying economics.

...

Being from the 'dimwitted state of Kentucky' I was wondering if someone could define some things for me:

Right wing
Left wing
Liberal
Objectivist
etc.

I see all these terms used on this forum, and I haven't got a clear idea which is which. I'm not well versed in politics.

 

[Guest]

Being from the 'dimwitted state of Kentucky' I was wondering if someone could define some things for me:

Right wing
Left wing
Liberal
Objectivist
etc.

I see all these terms used on this forum, and I haven't got a clear idea which is which. I'm not well versed in politics.

It's ok, minxie.

Neither is amicus.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Being from the 'dimwitted state of Kentucky' I was wondering if someone could define some things for me:

Right wing
Left wing
Liberal
Objectivist
etc.

I see all these terms used on this forum, and I haven't got a clear idea which is which. I'm not well versed in politics.

They are all ambiguous terms except the last, which refers specifically to one who agrees with the philosophy of Objectivism as explicated by author Ayn Rand. You can wiki it.

Liberalism has two definitions. The first describes every person on this website, including you, me, Pure, and Ami too:

Liberalism refers to a broad array of related ideas and theories of government that advocate individual liberty. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Age of Enlightenment. Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. A liberal society is characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected. In the 21st century, this usually means liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

(I deleted from that "market economy, free private enterprise" because we have some neo and paleo-Marxists here.)

The other definition applies to most people on this site, with some exceptions (like me):

Modern liberalism in the United States is a form of liberalism that began in the United States in the last years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. described it by saying, "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."

In recent decades "Liberalism" has also come to mean support for legal abortion, a more steeply progressive income tax, equal rights for homosexuals, minority preferences in government hiring and college admissions, increased spending on welfare, increased government control of health care, preservation of government-run primary education, maintenance and expansion of laws that empower unions, restrictions on political speech on campuses and in electoral campaigns, a distrust of business and the profit motive, and extensive environmental regulations that limit the uses to which property owners can put their property.

There are diffent kinds of "conservative." Many people are fiscally conservative but socially "liberal" in matters of sexual freedom, etc. Religious conservatives are usually but not always the former and never the latter. There are other combinations also.

Conservatism is a relativistic term used to describe political philosophies that favor traditional values, where "tradition" refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have different goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante. Conservatism as a political ideology is notoriously difficult to define, encompassing numerous different movements in various countries and time periods.

The most admirable form of conservative in my view are "Burkeian" conservatives, which refers to the 18th century British Parliamentarian Edmund Burke.

Some men, argued Burke, have less reason than others, and thus some men will make worse governments than others if they rely upon reason. To Burke, the proper formulation of government came not from abstractions such as "Reason," but from time-honoured development of the state and of other important societal institutions such as the family and the Church.

Burke argued that tradition is a much sounder foundation than 'metaphysical abstractions.' Tradition draws on the wisdom of many generations and the tests of time, while "reason" may be a mask for the preferences of one man, and at best represents only the untested wisdom of one generation. Any existing value or institution has undergone the correcting influence of past experience and ought to be respected.

However, such conservatives do not reject change. As Burke wrote, "A state without the means of change is without the means of its conservation." But they insist that further change be organic, rather than revolutionary. An attempt to modify the complex web of human interactions that form human society, for the sake of some doctrine or theory, runs the risk of running afoul of the iron law of unintended consequences. Burke advocates vigilance against the possibility of moral hazards. For conservatives, human society is something rooted and organic; to try to prune and shape it according to the plans of an ideologue is to invite unforeseen disaster.

Our beloved and sadly departed Coleen Thomas was in large part a Burkeian conservative, although she did not describe herself this way. I have a streak of it myself, but am mostly a flaming libertarian, meaning I support minimal government involvement in the personal, social or economic realms of life.

Quotes from wiki

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Oh, come on. After that, is anyone really to believe you're open-minded?

It's like you open the door to a soup kitchen, then put bouncers out front to only let the 'really needy' in.

He'd open a soup kitchen and then lock out the needy and hire cashiers to sell the food.

The truly needy would have the money to purchase food. The rest would be deemed too lazy to be allowed to eat.

 

[Pure]

rox quoting: Modern liberalism in the United States is a form of liberalism that began in the United States in the last years of the 19th century and the early years of the 20th century. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. described it by saying, "there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."

P: while this isn't a bad definition, though somewhat US-centered, it brings up the issue of "right wing" and "left wing", for US, Democratic party liberalism is a mild form of left wing philsophy.

i define 'right wing' as catering to established interests, in the present context, business interests, and interests of the propertied class, though a couple hundred years ago, the "interests" of a monarchy would count.* catering to business interests means that the government is either non interfering or actively furthering (e.g. with tax breaks) with business activities. the government "respects" property, letting its owners do as they please, if it's not directly criminal. (selling defective parachutes does not count as criminal, in the right wing lexicon. selling something marked '$100' by means of a $200 debit on the buyer's credit card counts as criminal)

left wing indicates a concern for governing in furtherance of the interests of the majority, the "people", including those without property. it suggest that business or commerce be directed by the wishes of the people or their reps.

a "liberal" then, attempts to do this with *minimum* government ownership and direct dictation. as Schesinger says, "supervise the standards of life" and 'regulate business competition.' often businesses can be affected by "guidelines," and voluntary codes.

we then, define the social democrat (=democratic socialist), as in most West European countries, as favoring the pursuit of these life quality and person security goals through a major government involvement in either or both of insurance (e.g. unemployment, health, or automobile accident), or ownership of businesses. e.g., the (elected) government might control all--or a major part-- of the oil industry and some other key sectors. an s-d government is not averse to passing laws directing and controlling business practices, where 'guidelines' are not working.

most w. european governments, *even when styled 'right wing' by the US press* are to some substantial degree social democratic, including that, for instance, of ms. thatcher, a while back; or ms merkel, now in germany, or sarkozy in france.

historically then, the paranoid right, exemplified in amicus, is correct that "liberalism" is a diluted, somewhat socialistic approach to solving public problems (e.g. poverty of the elderly). the liberals, indeed, "poach" ideas from the social democrats, e.g. unemployment insurance, and go with them, sometimes in modified form.

--
an issue i won't address is the question of authority; i'll simply say that both right wing and left wing persons are sometimes advocates of strong governmental authority, restrictions on liberty, etc. examples would be Hitler (right) and Lenin (left). others on the right and left want restriction on authority and maximum personal liberty.

such persons on the right are very scarce these days, (e.g. Safire, Spector; any Republican or conservative who's expressed discomfort over the Patriot Act or Guantanamo), and almost absent from this board. by contrast, there are lots of US persons on the left ("liberals"), represented in this forum, with active, expressed concerns for civil liberties, i.e., restrictions on government authority and arbitrary measures (e.g. lawbreaking under 'executive privilege.')

as above, is how i see things; i write from memory without drawing directly now on "authorities."

---
* it can be seen that my definition of 'right wing' is roughly in agreement with roxanne's, for 'burkean conservative', as one would hope, if we're speaking the same language.

 

[amicus]

On the 'YouTube/CNN Presidential Candidates show and tell episode tonight, Senator Hillary Clinton refused to identify herself as a Liberal, instead preferred, "Modern Progressive", her terms.

Interestingly enough not one of the eight candidates present claimed the 'Liberal' moniker.

The people who migrated to the 'New World', America, came mostly from northern Europe, England, Ireland, Scotland, the Swedes and other low country residents.

They came to escape the poverty and oppression of European Aristocracy and the restrictive class structure of Imperial Britain and France.

They rebelled against high taxes and the British Crown and declared themselves a free and independent nation wherein individual human rights, the right to own and dispose of property were codified into law, forbidding either a King or a Church to dictate their course of action.

For nearly two hundred and fifty years, a small dissatisfied band of dissidents has endeavored to revert back to the oppressive European way of life.

It has reached a point where many Americans, for many reasons, have forgotten the value of human freedom and how it was fought for.

We can fight again if need be.


Amicus...

 

[Pure]

amicus, which of the assaults on liberty in the US in the last 5 years have you written about, with concern? i refer to imprisonment without charges; years in prison without trial, etc. of US citizens?

I've read hundreds of your provocations, but nary a word have i seen.

My impression is that you're for liberty (aside from property rights) only on paper. Correct me if I'm wrong, by citing some of your postings.

 

[amicus]

Some one please wake up the indolent Pure, he has been napping since McGovern lost 49 States to the Republicans in the 1972 Presidential elections; only the double-dimwitted State of Massahtupid voted for the ’anti-war’ candidate.

***

“…A truck bomb ripped through the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, marking the first major assault in a two-decade terrorist war of embassy bombings and plane hijackings that culminated on Sept. 11, 2001.

The shocking attack killed 241 U.S. servicemen in a single strike — more than died on the deadliest day of fighting in Vietnam, this year's invasion of Iraq or the entire 1991 Persian Gulf War.

And it gave terrorists a major victory. The bombing drove the military from its peacekeeping mission in Lebanon and provided a blueprint for attacking Americans.

The retreat of U.S. forces inspired Osama bin Laden and sent an unintended message to the Arab world that enough body bags would prompt Western withdrawal, not retaliation.

"There's no question it was a major cause of 9/11," said John Lehman, the then-secretary of the Navy, who today is a member of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks…”

***

“…Eight Arab Terrorists

On the morning of September 5, 1972, with six days left in the Games, the worst tragedy in Olympic history hit. Eight Arab terrorists stormed into the Olympic village and raided the apartment building that housed the Israeli contingent….”

“ On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive…the crisis was the primary reason for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's defeat in the U.S. Presidential Election of 1980...The release took place just minutes after Ronald Reagan was officially sworn in as president of the United States…”


“…In April 1983, terrorists smashed a stolen GMC pickup loaded with explosives into the U.S. Embassy, killing 63 people, including 17 Americans.

Six months later, the truck bomb at the Marine barracks killed 241 U.S. troops…”

***

“…Two decades of Arab-backed terrorism have followed the bombings of the Marine barracks and the U.S. Embassy in Beirut…”

***

“…Using the Beirut bombings as a guide, terrorists:

—attacked American embassies in Kuwait two months later, and Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, killing 307 Americans and others.

—hijacked TWA Flight 847 for 17 days in 1985, taking hostages and killing a Navy diver.

—exploded Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, killing 270.

—bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, killing six and wounding about 1,000.

—killed 19 Americans in the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers, a U.S. military base in Saudi Arabia. The attack also wounded more than 370 Americans and Saudis.

—struck the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others.

—flew hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, killing nearly 3,000 people.

In those cases and dozens more, terrorists exploited unconventional methods and Western openness. And in almost every case until Sept. 11, the U.S. military response was minimal…”

***

“…Has carried out over 90 terrorist attacks since 1974 in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people.

Targets the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries, depending on which state is sponsoring it at the time.

Major attacks include Rome and Vienna airports in December 1985, the Neve Shalom synagogue in Istanbul, the Pan Am Flight 73 hijacking in Karachi in September 1986, and hotel bombing in London (1980),

El Al's Rome and Istanbul offices (1981), and Israeli Embassies in Athens and Vienna (1981). Anti-US attacks include an attempted bombing of a Pan Am airliner in Rio de Janeiro and a bombing on board a Pan Am flight from Tokyo to Honolulu in August 1982.


The City of Poros day-excursion ship attack in July 1988 in Greece.

Suspected of carrying out assassination on 14 January 1991 in Tunis of PLO deputy chief Abu Iyad and PLO security chief Abu Hul. ANO members also attacked and seriously wounded a senior ANO dissident in Algeria in March 1990...”

( http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_92/backg.html )

***


~~~

There are thousands more websites cataloging terrorist activities around the world. Did I pick and choose the articles and excerpts to suit my purposes? Of course I did, ‘get your own box…”

Except for the ideology bound ‘ACLU’ type, anti war left wing activists, most people understand, first of all that there is a ‘war on terror’ that has been taking place for decades.

Secondly most people realize and accept the necessity of security procedures to ensure their safety in travel and commerce.

Most realized that terrorism is mainly Arab/Muslim/Islamic and that racial profiling for Arab looking people is common sense and essential to the attempt to contain terrorism.

Security innovations such as hundreds of thousands of surveillance cameras throughout Great Britain and tighter immigration policies comes as a surprise, again, to only the ACLU oriented activism left wing radicals.

National and international security measures such as the Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security and hundreds of other programs come as no surprise to most people who understand the necessity to protect their freedom and lives.

Is there a threat to the loss of personal freedom and privacy rights by the institution of these procedures?

No.

It is a fabrication of the left, a reflection of the basic, anti war radicals as a political machination.

Amicus…

 

[Pure]

hi, ami,

i take it from your cut and paste about terrorist acts around the world that your answer to my question about postings regarding US citizens' liberty, is 'no' --that you haven't made any such postings.

so my conclusion stands, on paper and computer screen you talk a good 'line' about individualism and liberty, but in practice you support--by silence or expressly-- the extralegal acts of an Imperial President. For instance you believe that jailings without charges are justified in the circumstance.

perhaps you remember that roxanne similarly wasn't able to find any postings about US citizens' liberties.

you're a paper libertarian who kow tows to the nearest dictator and swallows any excuse for arbitrary measures.. you'd surely have voted the Hitler ticket, for he too talked of 'emergency.'

just so we're clear, "liberty" in practice, is NOT your prime concern, not now or ever. if i'm wrong, cite your postings.

===

ami in partNational and international security measures such as the Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security and hundreds of other programs come as no surprise to most people who understand the necessity to protect their freedom and lives.

Is there a threat to the loss of personal freedom and privacy rights by the institution of these procedures?

No ....

 

[CharleyH]

Back and forth watering and tending my garden in the early evening hours, it’s a weekend so the news is blah, so I surfed around and found a program I had seen before, “The Little Ice Age: The Big Chill”. A Science or History Channel thing that spent all but the last five minutes of the program outlining the ’natural’ causes and effects of climate change over the centuries, a rather informative and interesting program.

But the last five minutes of the two hour special were awkwardly out of context and jarring as they tried to blame the latest climate change on ‘anthropo…something, genesis or morphism, didn’t hear it right, any way, man caused ‘greenhouse gases’, you know, the whole global warming scam.

I thought, Jesus, the damned left wing activists corrupt everything.

So I clumped away, disgusted, and changed the sprinkler from the corn to the potato patch and came back, looking for something else. Saw V for Vendetta was on, love Natalie Portman, but, once was enough. Then there was , “The Cider House Rules.” Sounded familiar but I didn’t remember the plot.

Ah, yes, didn’t take long, Michael Caine as an Obstetrician justifying abortion. It is, however, a rather well done film with some touching moments…so I left it on…back and forth.

Harvested a handful of cherry tomato’s and had a little snack…thinking.

It is quite a lengthy process to get an idea, a story, a book, into a screen play, get it financed and filmed, promoted and distributed.

I am continually searching for something interesting to watch on television. I don’t go out to movies or rent them. It never ceases to amaze me as I read the synopsis’s of hundreds of films, the number that promote left wing issues. Abortion, gay rights, lesbian parents, single mothers, deadbeat dad’s. A lot of chick flicks I guess, I usually don’t watch them.

Then there is another genre, that without fail, blames greedy and corrupt businessmen and polluting corporations, the rape and pillage of the environment for ’profit’, that dirty word of the left.

The guy from ‘Virgin’ enterprises, Sir Richard someone, was interviewed about his charitable contributions to various causes. Reminded me of other left wing benefactors, such as George Soros and others who funded the now bankrupt “Air America” a left wing satellite radio network that failed because no one listens to left wing talk shows.

Now Democrats in Congress want to re-institute the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ of the Federal Communications Commission to force the presence of left wing programs on the public.

Part of the left wing mantra is to make those successful, wealthy individuals feel guilt over their accomplishments and donate resources to ‘humanitarian’, always left wing, groups.

Liberals are like a voracious virus infecting the film world, not just that the book world and the art world and of course, education at all levels.

It is like a strange mind/body dichotomy that used to be a topic of conversation in philosophical studies.

One side works and saves and studies and goes on to build the skyscrapers, roads and bridges; to forge the new technologies and to entrepeneur a new age of television and computers and space travel, to create the means by which we live with mines and factories and farms and business in general and the other side, paints and dabbles and talks and like the Gypsies of old, entertain us. Yet they basically also perform as parasites on the living body of the healthy.

It is not, though some think so, a symbiotic relationship where host and parasite both benefit. Not at all, the left parasites drain the life of the host and bleed it to death.

I used to consider this conclusion a terrible tragedy for mankind with a very dark future in store for all. Now I just find the left liberal progressives as funny and silly and repetitious to a point that soon, even the general public will laugh at the antics of the left.

I know, SUA, Shut Up Amicus.

Sighs…but I do ask that you do as I did, surf the channels, read the content, see what you find.

Amicus….

I beg you to watch the new 'Battlestar Galactica' from beginning to end (season 1 thru 2.5 (edit the 3rd season is not yet available) with Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell ), Ami. There are left and right issues colliding in that TV show like no tomorrow. It's the ONLY series I can think of right now that really challenges your disbelief as a viewer and at the same time questions your values in different ways and blasts out every series convention you can think of. Intriguing show, which is something I rarely say.

 

[FallingToFly]

Hey Ami, got a question?

What would you think of an average middle-income family in which:

D is a devoted parent who works hard and is aspiring to own their own business- and making good money in the process.
M is a stay at home parent who sidelines as a writer and model
D has a gf
M knows this, has a gf as well. And a bf, as M is a bit more high-maintenance than D in the sexual arena.
They have three kids with excellent grades, strong values, great manners and incredible talents in theater, art, music, sports, and mechanics?

Just wondering.

 

[amicus]

I beg you to watch the new 'Battlestar Galactica' from beginning to end (season 1 thru 2.5 (edit the 3rd season is not yet available) with Edward James Olmos and Mary McDonnell ), Ami. There are left and right issues colliding in that TV show like no tomorrow. It's the ONLY series I can think of right now that really challenges your disbelief as a viewer and at the same time questions your values in different ways and blasts out every series convention you can think of. Intriguing show, which is something I rarely say.

~~~

Thank you Charley. I was rather excited at the prospect of something new to watch when it first came out as I was a little entertained by the first 'Adamo' series.

I like Mary McDonnell as an actress, but something in the show turned me off and I stopped watching after the first two episodes.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Hey Ami, got a question?

What would you think of an average middle-income family in which:

D is a devoted parent who works hard and is aspiring to own their own business- and making good money in the process.
M is a stay at home parent who sidelines as a writer and model
D has a gf
M knows this, has a gf as well. And a bf, as M is a bit more high-maintenance than D in the sexual arena.
They have three kids with excellent grades, strong values, great manners and incredible talents in theater, art, music, sports, and mechanics?

Just wondering.

~~~

I doubt very much that you really want an answer to that, especially from me.

You did not specify if they were married or not, or even same or opposite gender, or bi sexual or sumpin...dunno...

I know that situation would not work for me, personally as I am extremely possessive of my woman.

I would further feel guilty of sharing my affections outside marriage or a relationship as I think one has only so much quality time to offer others.

The children...I don't know...are they aware of situation, do they know all the other partners? Do you have moral or ethical values you wish to instill in them?

What ever works for you, I guess.

Amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

~~~

Thank you Charley. I was rather excited at the prospect of something new to watch when it first came out as I was a little entertained by the first 'Adamo' series.

I like Mary McDonnell as an actress, but something in the show turned me off and I stopped watching after the first two episodes.

Amicus...

Too bad, Ami. The show really got it's act together since that time. I'm not sure the producers or writer's really knew where to take it at first, but one needs to watch it from the start to get where it's going). I know (at least if you enjoy the whole concept of grey between evil and good and democratic vs. republican and pagan vs. christianity) that you would especially enjoy the second season and the 2.5 season.

Do you recall what you did not like in those first episodes?

 

[FallingToFly]

~~~

I doubt very much that you really want an answer to that, especially from me.

You did not specify if they were married or not, or even same or opposite gender, or bi sexual or sumpin...dunno...

I know that situation would not work for me, personally as I am extremely possessive of my woman.

I would further feel guilty of sharing my affections outside marriage or a relationship as I think one has only so much quality time to offer others.

The children...I don't know...are they aware of situation, do they know all the other partners? Do you have moral or ethical values you wish to instill in them?

What ever works for you, I guess.

Amicus...

A) There was reason for that, I didn't want to clutter up the basics with the details.

B) Posessive I can understand.

C) Do you think that love is a finite quantity?

D) They are aware of the other people in the situation, and do in fact interact with them on a regular basis. Due to their ages, they are not privy to the intimate details of the situation (of course) but they are aware that these people are a pretty stable element of life.

D2) Everyone has moral and ethical values to teach, and these children are being taught such values. Is there a reason why you think that they wouldn't be?

 

[amicus]

Too bad, Ami. The show really got it's act together since that time. I'm not sure the producers or writer's really knew where to take it at first, but one needs to watch it from the start to get where it's going). I know (at least if you enjoy the whole concept of grey between evil and good and democratic vs. republican and pagan vs. christianity) that you would especially enjoy the second season and the 2.5 season.

Do you recall what you did not like in those first episodes?

~~~

At your urgings I will take another look at it, thanks again.

I think you are setting me up a little here Charley. My memory may be at fault, but I think for the same reason that Geena Davis(?) failed as a series with a woman President and one of the Star Trek series, with a woman Captain, failed for the same reason.

I am sick to death of masculine women in the media and arts, beginning to hate even Fox news during the day as I find my eyes being drawn to the bare thighs and crossed legs and of course, the screechy voices.

the always amorous amicus...

 

[CharleyH]

~~~

At your urgings I will take another look at it, thanks again.

I think you are setting me up a little here Charley. My memory may be at fault, but I think for the same reason that Geena Davis(?) failed as a series with a woman President and one of the Star Trek series, with a woman Captain, failed for the same reason.

I am sick to death of masculine women in the media and arts, beginning to hate even Fox news during the day as I find my eyes being drawn to the bare thighs and crossed legs and of course, the screechy voices.

the always amorous amicus...

Oh Ami, you know I hate men like you - over-compensating for something relatively small. You may as well just buy a Corvette! BTW? I am not a trekkie.

I know you would enjoy the grey of the narrative, though. The writers have not made up their mind on who is evil and who is not on many levels (religious, political, capatilist vs. communism, cloning vs. not and etc.) and I love the show for that reason alone - they have not yet committed to anything, but you know when they reach earth - they must. I am ultimately intrigued by what they will commit to on all levels in the end.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=FallingToFly]A) There was reason for that, I didn't want to clutter up the basics with the details.

B) Posessive I can understand.

C) Do you think that love is a finite quantity?

D) They are aware of the other people in the situation, and do in fact interact with them on a regular basis. Due to their ages, they are not privy to the intimate details of the situation (of course) but they are aware that these people are a pretty stable element of life.

D2) Everyone has moral and ethical values to teach, and these children are being taught such values. Is there a reason why you think that they wouldn't be?[/QUOTE]


~~~

Why do I feel as I do with CharleyH, that I am being set up in some way here. I parse you want to justify your situation and challenge my moral concepts, I guess thas okay...


C) Do you think that love is a finite quantity?

That be a curious question. I suggest that love for one person of the opposite sex, can be infinite and unconditional.

Now, if you divide that by two or more, by definition, what do you get?

While the love I describe may be infinite, the time that one has to be sharing or intimate is finite; only so many hours in a day and we gotta sleep and eat sometime.

D2) Everyone has moral and ethical values to teach, and these children are being taught such values. Is there a reason why you think that they wouldn't be?[/QUOTE]

Here we go, I suppose. Although you may have worded the question in such a way the fidelity is not a value to you, it is to me. The same with loyalty and/or promiscuity.

These values, ethics and morals do have definitions, rather precise ones. The situation you describe is not one I would judge as moral or ethical and it would appear to me that the values you pass on to your children reflect a rather ambiguous approach to relationships and what is truly valuable to the participants.

You can live anyway you choose and pass on what ever values you choose, it is your life and your children.

Perhaps you might pass on to this inquisitive mind, just what values you seek and enjoy from multiple relationships of both parties?

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Oh Ami, you know I hate men like you - over-compensating for something relatively small. You may as well just buy a Corvette! BTW? I am not a trekkie.

I know you would enjoy the grey of the narrative, though. The writers have not made up their mind on who is evil and who is not on many levels (religious, political, capatilist vs. communism, cloning vs. not and etc.) and I love the show for that reason alone - they have not yet committed to anything, but you know when they reach earth - they must. I am ultimately intrigued by what they will commit to on all levels in the end.

~~~

Hmmm...I am neither small in the Napoleonic sense or any other, ya lil twirp, but I did buy an MG and an Austen=Heally MK2000 somewhere in my long ago past.

As I said, I will give it another look, but I am not fond of 'grey' areas of anything, I like the old fashioned good versus evil morality play with both sides well defined.

That isn't to say that I don't enjoy reading and writing the various degrees of discovery concerning one's character in terms of ethics and morals and as they apply to the rest of life.

Ciao....

Ami

 

[CharleyH]

~~~

As I said, I will give it another look, but I am not fond of 'grey' areas of anything, I like the old fashioned good versus evil morality play with both sides well defined.

Ami

Forget BSG, then. Try a little known HBO production (in your local Blockbuster, I'm sure) called 'Carnivale'. Wonderful good vs. evil storyline, but sadly off the air because it was too expensive to produce. They tied it up nicely, with room to grow yet it was only a season or two long. It was a fabulous series, though.

 

[FallingToFly]

[QUOTE=FallingToFly]A) There was reason for that, I didn't want to clutter up the basics with the details.

B) Posessive I can understand.

C) Do you think that love is a finite quantity?

D) They are aware of the other people in the situation, and do in fact interact with them on a regular basis. Due to their ages, they are not privy to the intimate details of the situation (of course) but they are aware that these people are a pretty stable element of life.

D2) Everyone has moral and ethical values to teach, and these children are being taught such values. Is there a reason why you think that they wouldn't be?

~~~

Why do I feel as I do with CharleyH, that I am being set up in some way here. I parse you want to justify your situation and challenge my moral concepts, I guess thas okay...

*snip*

Perhaps you might pass on to this inquisitive mind, just what values you seek and enjoy from multiple relationships of both parties?

Amicus...[/QUOTE]

I promise I'm not setting you up, Ami. Just curious. As a general rule, I think that are assumptions are a bad thing, and shouldn't be made, so I try not to.

As to your question:

I'm not quite sure where you go with the values thing. In my opinion, such a situation has both pros and cons, which have to be weighed against each other in making any decisions. There are things like added adults to help in the raising and training of the children, support, etc. Of course the pros include egos to be managed and jealousy issues being dealt with, but in the ideal dynamic, it works.

Like most parents, such a family would naturally teach their children what they should know to be sane, sober, responsible citizens: honesty, hard work, responsibility, dedication, loyalty and strength. A commitment to family and community, as well as a responsibility to the environment and to each other.

This isn't my family situation, if you were wondering. Ideally, I wish I had this kind of group marriage that could work, but I was curious as to what you would think of such a situation- an unconventional family unit that was still raising productive and responsible children.

 

[CharleyH]

Why do I feel as I do with CharleyH, that I am being set up in some way here. I parse you want to justify your situation and challenge my moral concepts, I guess thas okay...

Oh, please. I ask you questions, I can't ever recall asking you to justify 'your' opinion on a matter. I have asked you to prove with points to back up your statements, but never have I asked you to justify your own personal opinion, Ami. (at least I don't think and if I have? LOL there must have been a reason).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Hey Ami, got a question?

What would you think of an average middle-income family in which:

D is a devoted parent who works hard and is aspiring to own their own business- and making good money in the process.
M is a stay at home parent who sidelines as a writer and model
D has a gf
M knows this, has a gf as well. And a bf, as M is a bit more high-maintenance than D in the sexual arena.
They have three kids with excellent grades, strong values, great manners and incredible talents in theater, art, music, sports, and mechanics?

Just wondering.

I would call them either libertarian, or something else and the victims of false consciousness.