User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 23

  1. #1
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default Nature vs Nurture - Political philosphy...

    Okay so this is probably a subject too wide for one thread but I figured what the heck, I'd try anyway.

    A couple of things which don't make sense..

    In the UK the average citizen is not considered responsible enough to own and keep a firearm but they may drive an LGV even if they're too stupid to tie their own shoe laces (it is a right after all no?).

    In the US the average citizen is allowed to carry a firearm but they can't buy automatic weapons. You can buy a box of linked 7.62mm ammo but you can't buy anything that would normally fire it.

    In the UK a person in a car is required to wear a seatbelt, a motorcyclist is required to wear a helmet and you shouldn't ride a bicycle without one of those mushroom shaped things on your noggin yet you can buy a car which will do 200mph + even though the speed "limit" is 70mph.

    Now is it just me or can people not decide whether their populace is a group of responsible people with brains or a bunch of sheep?

    Should governments really get this involved in day to day living?

    If people really need to be controlled to the extent where certain safety procedures become mandatory then is the whole democracy idea really just a façade?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #2
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    What does this have to do with nature/nurture?

    I don't think this issue can be boiled down to sweeping generalizations about the collective trustworthiness of society. Everyone trusts some people more than others.
    I don't wanna!

  3. #3
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    What does this have to do with nature/nurture?
    Nature being survival of the fittest versus nurture where you have to take into account the legion of cuddly wuddlies.
    I don't think this issue is really about responsibility. No one would make a sweeping generalization about the collective trustworthiness of society. Everyone trusts some people more than others.
    All law and such is sweeping generalisations about people. I do not doubt that few ever address it as such but I'm choosing to do so now.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  4. #4
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Nature being survival of the fittest versus nurture where you have to take into account the legion of cuddly wuddlies.
    So you started out with a semblance of one idea, made the title, forgot it and delved into something different. Then when someone called you on the disconnect you decided to bullshit. Gotcha.

    All law and such is sweeping generalisations about people.
    Not really, and you're not even talking about law. Absence of laws is not a discussion of law.

    Actually, no, scratch that. I'd rather you tell me how nature/nurture relates to absence of law.
    I don't wanna!

  5. #5
    meh Salomé's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,540

    Default

    So you're against the nanny state? But why does state intervention diminish democratic aims where the government is democratically elected? It just appears that most people in the UK seem to want/tolerate more state control, not less.

    I don't find your examples particularly compelling. Guns aren't necessary and cause harm. LGVs are - and you have to take a test to drive one.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    Gosh, the world looks so small from up here on my high horse of menstruation.

  6. #6
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    So you started out with a semblance of one idea, made the title, forgot it and delved into something different. Then when someone called you on the disconnect you decided to bullshit. Gotcha.
    Decaf day? The title's the grabber not the meat. It's kind of a gross generalisation and a good title for the two opposing sides.

    Nature - as intended.. unmessed with...etc etc.
    Nurture - managed, guided etc etc.

    That make more sense?
    Not really, and you're not even talking about law. Absence of laws is not a discussion of law.
    Great so no contrast then? How do you weigh the benefits of law if you cannot discuss what may exist if it were absent?
    Actually, no, scratch that. I'd rather you tell me how nature/nurture relates to absence of law.
    You point me to a bunch of parrots who have a long list of rules and exceptions. I believe the theory is that if you can beat the living daylights out of every single opponent then yes you can do whatever it is that you wanted to do.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #7
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluemonday View Post
    So you're against the nanny state?
    Personally? Yes, but I'm trying to be objective.
    But why does state intervention diminish democratic aims where the government is democratically elected?
    Exactly.
    It just appears that most people in the UK seem to want/tolerate more state control, not less.
    That's odd.. I don't recall ever being asked. All we ever get asked is if we'd like the laws published in blue or red and even then only 40 odd percent of people actually think the difference is worth voting on!!
    I don't find your examples particularly compelling. Guns aren't necessary and cause harm. LGVs are - and you have to take a test to drive one.
    They're not really... it was an offshoot on thinking about gun control. Hell if you want impressive examples go find your holiday snaps. I'm not here for your entertainment.

    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  8. #8
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Now is it just me or can people not decide whether their populace is a group of responsible people with brains or a bunch of sheep?

    Should governments really get this involved in day to day living?

    If people really need to be controlled to the extent where certain safety procedures become mandatory then is the whole democracy idea really just a façade?
    Interesting questions....sadly I'm too tired from work to fully answer.

    Basically it's a classic dispute between postive and negative freedoms - among other issues.

    Should the the government be involved in day to day living? To an extent yes; since the governmenrt's major goal is promoting the common good of its citizens. However, this should mostly be done at local levels rather than higher up - this is called the principle of subsidarity.

    Dr. Jeff Mirus gives rather good summary of this concept:
    "The principle of subsidiarity is based on a strong awareness of the dignity of each human person, and the appropriateness of each person acting through his own natural communities to order the affairs common to the group. Human dignity is preserved and honored when this ordering of life is decided and implemented as much as possible by the same people whose lives are being ordered. As long as matters can be handled in a reasonably effective manner locally, imperfections at this level are far preferable to the unavoidable drawbacks of moving things to a higher and inherently less accountable level."
    As far as the issues of the masses are concerned; that is also rather complex. Subsidiarity offers a good solution to that, since it is based on the notion of a commonwealth being made up of various different communities and groups - each with their own concerns, values, needs, etc.

    It's usually when you try to group everybody together in one undivided entity that the issue of the masses really occurs, since by default you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator in such a situation. With subsidiarity, however, the possibility of unity based upon a higher common demoninator is greater.

    With the perspective of subsidiarity: the basic assumption is that geniune unity flows from the grassroots up, it's not imposed from the top down - which is the common assumption in most political thinking today.

    Of course there's much more to this, but this will have to do for now. My random worthless two cents so to speak.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Of course there's much more to this, but this will have to do for now. My random worthless two cents so to speak.
    Definitely not worthless. Collectivists prefer to force conformity because they're convinced that it's ultimately beneficial for society, but I don't think they've thought that through completely.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  10. #10
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    With the perspective of subsidiarity: the basic assumption is that geniune unity flows from the grassroots up, it's not imposed from the top down - which is the common assumption in most political thinking today.
    Spot on. Just what I was thinking.

    Glad you posted that lot. At the very least it's nice to have a name for a theory that other's can recognise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    My random worthless two cents so to speak.
    Absolute rot. If that's random and worthless then quit trying to plan and make such useful and insightful posts. The detritus is much more interesting
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

Similar Threads

  1. Nature vs nurture temperaments
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum Other Personality Systems
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-25-2015, 03:39 AM
  2. Video: Personality-Type Development: Nature vs. Nurture
    By highlander in forum Typology Videos and RSS Feeds
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-28-2014, 08:13 PM
  3. Nature Vs. ThatGirl
    By ThatGirl in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 01:47 PM
  4. [SJ] SJs, Nature vs. Nurture
    By FallaciaSonata in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-27-2009, 05:30 PM
  5. N vs S political alignment
    By Misty_Mountain_Rose in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 02-06-2009, 10:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO