User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 102

  1. #31
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    1. Do away with no-fault divorces.
    No.
    But if we are going to strengthen marriage as an institution, it has to be entered into with that mindset. Like, you get and stay married because you value marriage. You get married because you have a vocation to be a spouse and parent -- those roles are important for you to fulfill. This gives something to hold onto if the luv falls away. I think people are not properly prepared for marriage. It's hard to succeed at something when you have no idea what you're doing...

    2. Strengthen labor unions [the need for multiple incomes adds stress to marriages].
    Yes

    3. Mandating a year of national or military service [re-teaching the ethic of duty].
    Yes

    4. Use public funds to bring jobs back to old industrial towns [cut back on transient communities]
    Yes

    5. Support same-sex marriage. [Marriage is a social stabilizer]
    Yes

    6. Increase the minimum wage. [money issues are the number one cause of divorce]
    Yes

    7. Teach character and civic values in school [hopefully encouraging participation in basic institutions, whether religious, civic, or community-oriented]
    Definitely. This is sorely lacking. I don't even care what it is, just give kids something to go by until they can figure out where they want to deviate from it.

    8. Stiffer prison sentences for violent offenders [crime kills neighborhoods]
    I don't know what to do about the crime/jail situation.

    9. Strict banking and wall street regulations [greed hurts families and communities]
    Yes

    10. Public support of faith-based organizations [they feed the hungry and house the poor effectively]
    I'd rather see secular organizations formed to feed the hungry and house the poor.

    11. Medicare for all. [medical catastrophes lead to bankruptcy; bankruptcy hurts families.]
    Yes

    12. Stricter gun control laws [see #8]
    I have mixed feelings about guns.

  2. #32
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    I don't see how anyone could look at those 5 points above and think they were anything but negative. But, okay...

    Next question - the remedies. What's your take on these?

    1. Do away with no-fault divorces.
    2. Strengthen labor unions [the need for multiple incomes adds stress to marriages].
    3. Mandating a year of national or military service [re-teaching the ethic of duty].
    4. Use public funds to bring jobs back to old industrial towns [cut back on transient communities]
    5. Support same-sex marriage. [Marriage is a social stabilizer]
    6. Increase the minimum wage. [money issues are the number one cause of divorce]
    7. Teach character and civic values in school [hopefully encouraging participation in basic institutions, whether religious, civic, or community-oriented]
    8. Stiffer prison sentences for violent offenders [crime kills neighborhoods]
    9. Strict banking and wall street regulations [greed hurts families and communities]
    10. Public support of faith-based organizations [they feed the hungry and house the poor effectively]
    11. Medicare for all. [medical catastrophes lead to bankruptcy; bankruptcy hurts families.]
    12. Stricter gun control laws [see #8]
    I have a problem with all of these "solutions" because it assumes that solutions should come through legislation. I tend to think the government should be a last resort to solving a problem instead of a first resort.

    For example if I thought one problem is that religion is less relevant in people's lives today, then a good solution would be to become more involved in how my church impacts the community (like food drives or other charitable works for example). Or if one problem is that divorce is more common, then I could stand up for people at work who try to maintain a work/life balance. These people are trying to put family time ahead of work time and should be seen as positive role models instead of negative ones.

    These are the sorts of solutions that would be more productive I think. Legislation tends to be less effective and also takes away people's freedoms. It should be used sparingly.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  3. #33
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I have a problem with all of these "solutions" because it assumes that solutions should come through legislation. I tend to think the government should be a last resort to solving a problem instead of a first resort.

    For example if I thought one problem is that religion is less relevant in people's lives today, then a good solution would be to become more involved in how my church impacts the community (like food drives or other charitable works for example). Or if one problem is that divorce is more common, then I could stand up for people at work who try to maintain a work/life balance. These people are trying to put family time ahead of work time and should be seen as positive role models instead of negative ones.

    These are the sorts of solutions that would be more productive I think. Legislation tends to be less effective and also takes away people's freedoms. It should be used sparingly.
    Well, I'm a liberal, so I come at it from a different perspective. I think government has an important role to play, even if (on a few of these points) it can be seen as a restrictive role. On the other hand, I certainly agree with you that government action isn't the *only* solution. It would take personal and cultural changes as well. I think the problem should be tackled in all possible ways.

  4. #34
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    If you sift through the laundry list of issues, at its heart social conservatism makes the following comparisons between past and present:

    1. Families are less stable than they used to be.
    2. Communities are more transient.
    3. Social mores regarding behavior have deteriorated.
    4. There is less deference to previous generations or their values.
    5. Community, national, religious institutions have become less relevant.

    On the facts, it's tough to argue the truth of those points (easy to measure stats like divorce rate, crime rate, average number of job/career changes, church membership, etc... and compare it to the same statistics from, say, 1945.)

    So, here's what I want to open up to the board for debate: setting aside the issues the social conservatives back today (same-sex marriage chief among them), are those five changes positive, negative, or neutral?
    1. Today married women often can choose the option of work. They can in some lucky cases have their own money. They may not need to cover up for the beating husband.
    They need not always abide and see their children molested by an abusing father.
    They can sometimes leave. Sometimes they can even impose a restricting order on the husband.
    2. Read the above.
    3. Read the above.
    4. Read the above.
    5. Read the above.

    The priests preach in empty houses. They preach that women have to be subject to the husband. Not in every case. Not any more.

    Times they are achanging. It is a good news.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    1. Today married women often can choose the option of work. They can in some lucky cases have their own money. They may not need to cover up for the beating husband.
    They need not always abide and see their children molested by an abusing father.
    They can sometimes leave. Sometimes they can even impose a restricting order on the husband.
    2. Read the above.
    3. Read the above.
    4. Read the above.
    5. Read the above.

    The priests preach in empty houses. They preach that women have to be subject to the husband. Not in every case. Not any more.

    Times they are achanging. It is a good news.
    This argument that the rise in divorce rates are just evidence of more options and freedoms for women rings hollow to me - more a reflexive feminist argument than an argument grounded in reality. If women in abusive marriages accounted for all (or most) divorces, there's no way the divorce rate would be hovering around 50%. No one in today's society would make an argument that abuse is not legitimate grounds for divorce. Hence the suggested reform to do away with no fault divorces. Abuse is definitely a fault.

    But divorce isn't a one-way street. As a woman, I would like to believe that when I get married, it's permanent - not until my husband decides he wants more out of life or some cliche like "falling out of love." Some level of divorce is inevitable in society. But I also don't think it helps anyone for marriage to become a step above dating - completely conditional on the whims of either partner.

  6. #36
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    If you sift through the laundry list of issues, at its heart social conservatism makes the following comparisons between past and present:

    1. Families are less stable than they used to be.
    2. Communities are more transient.
    3. Social mores regarding behavior have deteriorated.
    4. There is less deference to previous generations or their values.
    5. Community, national, religious institutions have become less relevant.

    On the facts, it's tough to argue the truth of those points (easy to measure stats like divorce rate, crime rate, average number of job/career changes, church membership, etc... and compare it to the same statistics from, say, 1945.)

    So, here's what I want to open up to the board for debate: setting aside the issues the social conservatives back today (same-sex marriage chief among them), are those five changes positive, negative, or neutral?
    Its a balancing act... women and minorities had far less rights and freedom back then then they do today, as such they were stuck as 2nd class citizens and unable to make moves for themselves effectively.

    Even as far back as the 1970s you could beat your wife and get away with it.

  7. #37
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    This argument that the rise in divorce rates are just evidence of more options and freedoms for women rings hollow to me - more a reflexive feminist argument than an argument grounded in reality. If women in abusive marriages accounted for all (or most) divorces, there's no way the divorce rate would be hovering around 50%. No one in today's society would make an argument that abuse is not legitimate grounds for divorce. Hence the suggested reform to do away with no fault divorces. Abuse is definitely a fault.

    But divorce isn't a one-way street. As a woman, I would like to believe that when I get married, it's permanent - not until my husband decides he wants more out of life or some cliche like "falling out of love." Some level of divorce is inevitable in society. But I also don't think it helps anyone for marriage to become a step above dating - completely conditional on the whims of either partner.
    The only reason it wasnt though was because women didnt have a choice back then. If a woman was divorced her dating and married life was pretty much finished and she became a crone. Crones werent especially respected in society and usually had a very hard time scraping by.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Ruthie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ?
    Posts
    436

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Billy View Post
    The only reason it wasnt though was because women didnt have a choice back then. If a woman was divorced her dating and married life was pretty much finished and she became a crone. Crones werent especially respected in society and usually had a very hard time scraping by.
    I don't really understand how this comment responds to my comment. As I said, it isn't just women who file for divorces.

  9. #39
    Crazy Diamond Billy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    I don't really understand how this comment responds to my comment. As I said, it isn't just women who file for divorces.
    There is less social pressure for men to stick in a relationship simply because its the manly thing to do to self sacrifice for the family now that women have equal rights? Would be kind of retarded for men to remain traditional if women werent going to as well.

  10. #40
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ruthie View Post
    Well, I'm a liberal, so I come at it from a different perspective. I think government has an important role to play, even if (on a few of these points) it can be seen as a restrictive role. On the other hand, I certainly agree with you that government action isn't the *only* solution. It would take personal and cultural changes as well. I think the problem should be tackled in all possible ways.
    I'm not particularly liberal, conservative or libertarian. I just don't think controlling other people is a usually good solution and that's what a government solution will always involve.

    Also, I don't think the problem should tackled in all possible ways, because one part of implementing a solution is ensuring that you don't create an even bigger problem. A government solution leads to the problem, "How can I get the government to stop controlling my life?"
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

Similar Threads

  1. [Enne] The conundrum of social 4s
    By TheEndIsNotTheEnd in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 05-10-2017, 03:35 PM
  2. The Psychology of Social Conformity
    By Crabs in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-04-2015, 05:09 AM
  3. The Prime Means of Social Control
    By Mole in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 01:52 AM
  4. [INFJ] The snowball effect of social awkwardness
    By shimsham in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-06-2009, 04:27 PM
  5. Social entrepreneurship and the business of helping people
    By proteanmix in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 12-09-2008, 02:16 AM

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