[Kerrigan]

There are still lots of Americans out there who hold onto traditional values. Some Americans still fear God, work hard, live within their means, and so forth.

However, they are starting to be outnumbered by lazy, mentally ill, effeminate, risk-averse Americans who are ruining (and running) the country.

But, there are still millions of traditional Americans, mainly in the South and Midwest, who are holding onto what America used to be, and will fight to hang onto their values.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

There are still lots of Americans out there who hold onto traditional values. Some Americans still fear God, work hard, live within their means, and so forth.

However, they are starting to be outnumbered by lazy, mentally ill, effeminate, risk-averse Americans who are ruining (and running) the country.

But, there are still millions of traditional Americans, mainly in the South and Midwest, who are holding onto what America used to be, and will fight to hang onto their values.

There is a definite connotation here of the old being better than the new. So, it is better to fear God? Also, how are effeminate people ruining and running the country, and what does any of this have to do with this thread?

As an aside, I think people that hold on to misconceived romantic notions of what they thought this country was and are uninterested in the basic idea of improving things and thinking progressively (by that I mean in the literal sense, not in the rhetorical way used by the left) are at least as much of a danger as anybody else.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No Snopes entry for the site yet...

Perhaps, but...

Ministry of Truth � Blog Archive � Birth Or Not busted

[exca1ibur]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

There are still lots of Americans out there who hold onto traditional values. Some Americans still fear God, work hard, live within their means, and so forth.

However, they are starting to be outnumbered by lazy, mentally ill, effeminate, risk-averse Americans who are ruining (and running) the country.

But, there are still millions of traditional Americans, mainly in the South and Midwest, who are holding onto what America used to be, and will fight to hang onto their values.

Those days are long over. We are in a era of computers doing everything for people, so traditional skills and traits are rare, if not extinct. Jobs in that market tend to be outsourced to other countries, so those people now work in Fast food and retail. You have to have two incomes per family to live comfortable on average. The family social aspect is about dead, as the kids caretaker is Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Apple, AT&T and Verizon, now. Most people trying to get ahead in life have massive debt, when you first start your career now, with no real guarantee anymore. (Curious how many people with degrees are actually in that actual field they have the degree in) Most tend to be in other fields graduating because they need to pay off debt now. So, in reality you are debt free by the time you are in your 50's or older, if buying a house. IMO Your religious faith has nothing to do with it. If that is your true belief, nothing should affect that.

Bottom line is times have changed, whether we like it or not, and we have to adapt and move on.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

But, there are still millions of traditional Americans, mainly in the South and Midwest, who are holding onto what America used to be, and will fight to hang onto their values.

BWahahahaha!!!

My state has more to do with how this country was and is than some ****ing god-fearing rednecks. Shove your moral superiority right up your ass.

[Kerrigan]

Just because you all (forum denizens, no less) hate traditional values, doesn't mean that there aren't many places where those values are the norm.

[besson3c]

I don't hate any values so long as they don't infringe upon my own, I just happen to think that what you wrote from an intellectual and non-moral perspective is simply nonsense.

[sek929]

Traditional values eh?

Like having a family that stayed together despite tough times, ate dinner together every night after saying grace, supported me and my sister in sports, school, and music? Those values?

Lemme break it down. The good ol days never existed, and never will exist. They are a fabrication of the imagination of people hung up on how others choose to live their lives. Massachusetts was the first state to end the federal ban on gay marriage, and to me that means the people that live here have a better sense of morality than those who would willfully limit the lives of others for religious reasons.

Again, shove your undeserved sense of morality strait up your ass.

[Kerrigan]

The "good old days" may never have existed for you, Sek (although I'm not sure what you mean by the use of that term, nor do I care to know).

However, a traditional and harmonious way of life plays out everyday in many regions of America. You must know this, or at least suspect it, otherwise you wouldn't react with profane hostility at the very suggestion that there are people out there who are happily living by more traditional values.

[besson3c]

So what's the difference between traditional values and values that are not modern?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

The good ol days never existed

Prior to 1906, you beg to differ.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by sek929 

My state has more to do with how this country was and is than some ****ing god-fearing rednecks. Shove your moral superiority right up your ass.

I love you Fatty.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what's the difference between traditional values and values that are not modern?

Modern values would have you believe the only worthwhile issue of our time is whether or not two people of the same sex can get married apparently. Crime index, debt to gdp ratio, and overall failed governance be damned.

In my estimation, traditional values have more to do with fiscal sanity and the law of numbers; "a penny saved is a penny earned" for example or "waste not, want not". Some lament the indebtedness of our country and what it takes to be comfortable, but I submit again... fiscal sanity. Modern values define "comfort" as two car payments, more money spent on eating out and entertainment than on one's own healthcare, way more house than one can afford, 300+ channels of TV viewing, and the latest and greatest gaming system all the while crying to the government over their healthcare crisis. By far the most welfare being doled out in this country is to the middle class serving only to increase an overall dependency class while doing zero for actual wealth disparity.

Traditional values; "it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish."
Modern values; "where's my fish?"

Then, there's the breakdown of the home to which I attribute primarily to us men. Men more interested in their own things than in the people they've committed themselves to. They do not see themselves as important in the homes giving their commitments to the government to fulfill or leaving women to their own devices, forcing them to leave their homes for 50 or more hours per week while strangers raise their kids.

Traditional values; "our children are precious"
Modern values; "kids are awfully resilient"

[besson3c]

Whatever ebuddy, I think your characterization is silly, and that was kind of my point: the whole "traditional values" label is silly.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Modern values would have you believe the only worthwhile issue of our time is whether or not two people of the same sex can get married apparently. Crime index, debt to gdp ratio, and overall failed governance be damned.

In my estimation, traditional values have more to do with fiscal sanity and the law of numbers; "a penny saved is a penny earned" for example or "waste not, want not". Some lament the indebtedness of our country and what it takes to be comfortable, but I submit again... fiscal sanity. Modern values define "comfort" as two car payments, more money spent on eating out and entertainment than on one's own healthcare, way more house than one can afford, 300+ channels of TV viewing, and the latest and greatest gaming system all the while crying to the government over their healthcare crisis. By far the most welfare being doled out in this country is to the middle class serving only to increase an overall dependency class while doing zero for actual wealth disparity.

Traditional values; "it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish."
Modern values; "where's my fish?"

Then, there's the breakdown of the home to which I attribute primarily to us men. Men more interested in their own things than in the people they've committed themselves to. They do not see themselves as important in the homes giving their commitments to the government to fulfill or leaving women to their own devices, forcing them to leave their homes for 50 or more hours per week while strangers raise their kids.

Traditional values; "our children are precious"
Modern values; "kids are awfully resilient"

Good post, though I don't know why you continue to bother with the pretense that bessonc actually wanted an actual answer to another of his "so what is blah de blah let me pretend to ask a question even though my shallow mind is already made up and I'll just say whatever to any answer given" bullshit "questions".

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever ebuddy, I think your characterization is silly, and that was kind of my point: the whole "traditional values" label is silly.

"Traditional values" may be nothing more than "old for the sake of old," but by the same token "modern values" may be nothing more than "new for the sake of new." It's naive to think that a majority of "old values" are negative or even obsolete, and casting off time-tested practices in favor of the New Hotness is to throw the baby out with the bath water. It's more logical to err on the side of tradition than on the side of modernity, if only by virtue of it being time-tested. Modernity should aspire to add, not replace, whenever possible, and the whole attitude of scorn for tradition based solely on a lack of novelty is foolhardy. "Fools rush in" and all that.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

You must know this, or at least suspect it, otherwise you wouldn't react with profane hostility at the very suggestion that there are people out there who are happily living by more traditional values.

Actually, I pointed out that my family is the very embodiment of traditional values as are plenty of people living in places that don't have Nascar flags hanging on their trailer park door. If you want to keep your retarded delusion that American values stem from one subset of people then bravo, you have more then just your morals shoved up your ass.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Prior to 1906, you beg to differ.

Funny, but I'm not that one-dimensional.

Were the good old days when women couldn't vote, what about slavery...were those the good old days? What about when children worked 12 hour days in dark factories? Were those the good old days?

Can anyone, ANYONE, point out when in our history that America has been a better place to live then now? When was this golden era of pure values and togetherness?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Can anyone, ANYONE, point out when in our history that America has been a better place to live then now?

The late '80s were pretty spiffy. The whole place felt a lot freer, a lot more upbeat, a lot less crazy.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

"Traditional values" may be nothing more than "old for the sake of old," but by the same token "modern values" may be nothing more than "new for the sake of new." It's naive to think that a majority of "old values" are negative or even obsolete, and casting off time-tested practices in favor of the New Hotness is to throw the baby out with the bath water. It's more logical to err on the side of tradition than on the side of modernity, if only by virtue of it being time-tested. Modernity should aspire to add, not replace, whenever possible, and the whole attitude of scorn for tradition based solely on a lack of novelty is foolhardy. "Fools rush in" and all that.

I welcome anything that replaces the way we've treated blacks, women, native Americans, pagans, gays, hispanics, Muslims, anything that replaces puritanism, our viewpoints towards sexuality, science, and on and on.

It's called evolution.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The late '80s were pretty spiffy. The whole place felt a lot freer, a lot more upbeat, a lot less crazy.

Did you live here in the late 80s?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did you live here in the late 80s?

Back and forth.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Back and forth.

Ahhh.. You must be older than I thought then.

My impression is that the 60s were the freest time in American history, in terms of the overall vibe. You may despise hippy politics, but the whole free love thing, people getting naked all the time, civil rights movement, etc. seems pretty liberating to me (although I didn't even exist yet), and many would say the conservative Reagan 80s were a direct response to that.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I welcome anything that replaces the way we've treated blacks, women, native Americans, pagans, gays, hispanics, Muslims, anything that replaces puritanism, our viewpoints towards sexuality, science, and on and on.

It's called evolution.

*whoosh*

[andi*pandi]

What I dislike about the "traditional values" folks is their estimation that no one else is living a moral life, or a quality life, and it's all black and white except when it's hypocritical. Get off your so-called semi-moral high-horse and live the Golden Rule.

[Uncle Skeleton]

It's true, but there is that attitude on both sides. A lot of progressive types think that traditional types all go home and beat their wives and sit around thinking up new ways to be abusive to brown people. Neither side has a monopoly on open-mindedness or open-heartedness.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's true, but there is that attitude on both sides. A lot of progressive types think that traditional types all go home and beat their wives and sit around thinking up new ways to be abusive to brown people. Neither side has a monopoly on open-mindedness or open-heartedness.

*whoosh* right back at you.

Nobody here is saying that. What is being said is that arguments that paint "traditional values" (whatever that really means) as being one-sided and just better all-round are flimsy. I'm not saying that everybody that embraces this nonsensical term and some definition of it is against the stuff I listed.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Ahhh.. You must be older than I thought then.

I ain't much older than you. I started young (graduated high school by 13, finished my education by 16).

Originally Posted by besson3c 

My impression is that the 60s were the freest time in American history, in terms of the overall vibe. You may despise hippy politics, but the whole free love thing, people getting naked all the time, civil rights movement, etc. seems pretty liberating to me (although I didn't even exist yet), and many would say the conservative Reagan 80s were a direct response to that.

I think the 80s were a lot freer. During the 60s you had the hippie thing, but you also had a large group of people pushing against the hippie thing. By the 80s this had mostly disappeared and the whole place had levelled out. I wasn't born in the 60s, so this is just an outside observation.

The main thing I despise about hippie politics is that libs expect me to pay for it. Go live in a field and do nothing all day for all I care - just don't expect me to foot the bill.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Get off your so-called semi-moral high-horse and live the Golden Rule.

Hang on. Isn't the main drive from the left something like it's "immoral" to not have universal health care, "immoral" to earn loads, "immoral" to not be helping out third world countries and "immoral" to be "destroying the planet"?

This makes no sense. Where's the left's observation of the golden rule?

[sek929]

Ah yes, the 80s.

With wonderful Reaganomics and when we still called AIDS GRIDS (gay reproductive immune deficiency syndrome). Cocaine was used like wine and the almighty dollar was god to all.

Again the golden age did not, and never will exist, except in the minds of simpletons.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

*whoosh* right back at you.

Nobody here is saying that.

Why don't you point to where someone here is saying that "traditional" non-subscribers are all immoral, or that "traditional values" are just better all-round?

What is being said is that arguments that paint "traditional values" (whatever that really means) as being one-sided and just better all-round are flimsy.

... by you, but funny thing is that post wasn't directed at you. Funnier thing is the straw man you're thrashing against. No one says traditional values are all better than modern ones, only aggregately better. The strengths outweigh the weaknesses, compared to progressive challenges, in practice. Time will tell. But you're just as guilty of extremizing your opposition as your opposition is of extremizing you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Ah yes, the 80s.

With wonderful Reaganomics and when we still called AIDS GRIDS (gay reproductive immune deficiency syndrome). Cocaine was used like wine and the almighty dollar was god to all.

You'd have had a great time if you were old enough to appreciate it. Everything felt freer.

[sek929]

I've had a great time in the 90s and 00s. Sure things have slowed down considerably in my line of work in the last few years, but I think the age we currently live in is pretty awesome.

Plus I love 90s rock and despise hair metal.

[besson3c]

It has been interesting going back and watching as many movies from the 80s that left a good impression on me as a kid as I can. They are mostly so pedestrian and lame nowadays, just too conservative and safe compared to flicks like Clockwork Orange, 2001, the Godfather movies, Apocalypse Now, etc. which were perhaps a product of their generation/decade.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Whatever ebuddy, I think your characterization is silly, and that was kind of my point: the whole "traditional values" label is silly.

It seems to me you disagree with the implication of the term more than disregard it. There are measurable differences in the makeup of the American family over time that have nothing to do with Christopher Columbus, Women's Suffrage, Jim Crow, a NYC Mosque, or Prop 8.

I don't know why invoking what is commonly understood as "traditional" is so contentious to you.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It has been interesting going back and watching as many movies from the 80s that left a good impression on me as a kid as I can. They are mostly so pedestrian and lame nowadays, just too conservative and safe compared to flicks like Clockwork Orange, 2001, the Godfather movies, Apocalypse Now, etc. which were perhaps a product of their generation/decade.

Selective memory.

Blade Runner, Full Metal jacket, The Terminator, Das Boot, Die Hard, 37°2 le matin, The Hitcher, After Hours.

[subego]

Brazil, The Road Warrior, Blue Velvet, Do The Right Thing, The Killing Fields.

[Laminar]

Airplane. Spaceballs.

'80s guy.

[Doofy]

And, of course, Police Academy 1-6.
I'm beginning to think that Oprah isn't really a Guttenberg fan.

[besson3c]

Short Circuit is cool too, as was Breakfast Club, Goonies, and some others...

All I'm saying is that all in all 80s movies sucked, although there were some good ones.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

And, of course, Police Academy 1-6.
I'm beginning to think that Oprah isn't really a Guttenberg fan.

**** you!

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

all in all 80s movies sucked, although there were some good ones.

All in all 60s movies sucked, although there were some good ones.
All in all 70s movies sucked, although there were some good ones.
All in all 90s movies sucked, although there were some good ones.
All in all 00s movies sucked, although there were some good ones (although I'll be buggered if I can name them).

[besson3c]

Paul Blart, Mall Cop you bow tie wearing hippy!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Were the good old days when women couldn't vote, what about slavery...were those the good old days? What about when children worked 12 hour days in dark factories? Were those the good old days?

No... of course those are all bad things, but it was a strong family unit and grassroots community involvement that gave voice to pleas for freedom and would eventually see the oppressed through these difficult eras. We are faced with new challenges in this era and with evidence of the standard familial structure breaking down and communal disconnectedness, less of these are available to their offspring for seeing them through difficult times and in fact a new form of oppression exists...

• Is an increase in the birthrate of unmarried women over the past 60 years a good thing?
• Is an increase in the divorce rate over the past 60 years a good thing?
• Is an increase in the number of children in one-parent families living in poverty a good thing?
• Is an increase in youth suicide over the past 60 years a good thing?

Can anyone, ANYONE, point out when in our history that America has been a better place to live then now? When was this golden era of pure values and togetherness?

Your perception is formed from having a strong sense of family and involvement. Imagine if you were one of the increasing numbers of children that didn't. Are the metrics you'd use to quantify "a better place to live than now" sustainable anyway?

[The Final Dakar]

What about women in the work place, increase in home ownership, and the spread of consumerism? Arguably those have had some effects on strong families/familial involvement.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What about women in the work place, increase in home ownership, and the spread of consumerism? Arguably those have had some effects on strong families/familial involvement.

*As an aside, it may surprise some to know that more women would rather be at home than in the workplace.

What we've learned is that an increase in home ownership means little when you can't maintain the mortgage payment. IMO, consumerism is a byproduct of not having to pay for necessities and the painful symptoms of irresponsibility are increasingly picked up by someone else; the moral hazard of modern values over traditional.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

*As an aside, it may surprise some to know that more women would rather be at home than in the workplace.

Yeah, at what point?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What we've learned is that an increase in home ownership means little when you can't maintain the mortgage payment.

That's really not an answer.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, consumerism is a byproduct of not having to pay for necessities and the painful symptoms of irresponsibility are increasingly picked up by someone else; the moral hazard of modern values over traditional.

I'd blame the moral hazard of capitalistic values over basic responsibility.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, at what point?

At what point, what?

That's really not an answer.

I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that an increase in home ownership was a good or bad thing for society. I assumed you were citing this as a good thing, but I qualified it with the obvious problems we've witnessed as a result of this increase.

I'd blame the moral hazard of capitalistic values over basic responsibility.

Then you don't understand the term "moral hazard". I was citing the fact that being insulated from basic responsibilities courtesy of someone else exacerbates irresponsible spending or increasing consumerism.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

At what point, what?

Would they rather be at home than at the workplace.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I wasn't sure if you were suggesting that an increase in home ownership was a good or bad thing for society. I assumed you were citing this as a good thing, but I qualified it with the obvious problems we've witnessed as a result of this increase.

I really don't think it's either, but I would point to it as another factor in the decline of the "traditional" family.

Now that I think of it, I think we can add the increased mobility (geographical and economic) to the mix, too.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Then you don't understand the term "moral hazard". I was citing the fact that being insulated from basic responsibilities courtesy of someone else exacerbates irresponsible spending or increasing consumerism.

My mistake. But I would disagree that the term traditional has some kind of ownership over the concept of responsibility.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Would they rather be at home than at the workplace.

Mine certainly would.

I really don't think it's either, but I would point to it as another factor in the decline of the "traditional" family.

Now that I think of it, I think we can add the increased mobility (geographical and economic) to the mix, too.

This is true. I think also the threshold for tolerating unfavorable situations (abusive sigothers, alcoholics, unfaithful, etc) is much lower than in was in past thanks to increased geographic, economic, and social mobility - the latter vertical and horizontal. This as well acts to diminish the impact/desire to have a traditional family, which over time erodes some of the positive values associated with that family.

My mistake. But I would disagree that the term traditional has some kind of ownership over the concept of responsibility.

It was more of a lease and the mileage of that minivan is way over the limit. Once Obama gets it out of the ditch, he should hand the keys right back over to the dealership (our kids) and buy a friggin bike.

In other words, those acting under the guise of responsibility (social and economic) have overextended their reach to condition the average person to believe that such virtues are meant for politicians and authorities, and that they are infact embracing such virtues by buying a house and collecting government assistance to do so - as their politicians have enabled them to do.