What are Progressive Values?

LOL! So sorry you had to run in tears from your claims that were utterly discredited.

Always glad to expose you as a dishonest troll.

 

Yes, I went beyond your claim that in religion marriage is about the 2 people getting married, because you are absolutely wrong. Reread my earlier post.

 

I have not mentioned optimal conditions before. The optimal conditions are that a man and a woman get married, have children, obey God, and live happily ever after. But that does not always happen, and people have to do the best they can.

There is no proof that people are born same sex oriented. And if they are born that way, then as members of a heterosexual species, they are not normal individuals and are far from being optimal.

Address those concerns to the appropriate poster.

You do not want homosexuals to be discriminated against, yet you have no concern over discriminating against religious people, or violating peoples personal property rights, or imposing your own beliefs on another person, or discriminating based upon your anti-religion.

 

Didn't read thread. Progressives, what I often call here the "gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-MSM Complex," have one value, increasing the size and drag of the mega regulatory state on the private sector and so bringing benefit to themselves and the Complex generally. They disguise this "value" behind all manner of effective emotional advertisements as opposed to policy arguments, and their self-awareness is so stunted that they may not even realize the truth underlying all their ostensible "crusades and causes." Daddy gets a 5k pay bump in his do nothing govjob? Sister Kate gets a municipal union pension that pays her 5k a month for life? Brother at the junior college gets his grant to study absurdities? Cousin Ferd gets a government contract to sell us $4 plastic forks? NO NO NO, it's -really- about gay marriage, human rights, the patriarchy, racism, and generally "justice!"

Yeah, mhmmmm.

This is why they, ironically the greatest labelers in human history, whine when either they or their advertisements are exposed to any labeling, scrutiny, critical thinking process or cost-benefit analysis whatsoever. They know full well that the whole Complex enriching patter is an advertisement, that a PSA that claims, for example, that 20% of the people in the country are "food insecure" is an out and out lie that benefits them, but don't care who pays or about the social costs because they are morally corrupt and deeply character flawed human beings, if not out and out personality disordered.

 

I just don' think the folks who most need to understand the subject, won't read it to learn it and other progressives already know. It would never occur to me to tell conservatives 'what their values are', and if I presumed to try, I would expect to be corrected by the real live conservatives, who know better than I. I would see the exercise as an opportunity to learn from them, rather than an opportunity to present the forum with snark and ignorance.

 

As a conservative, I know that my fellow conservatives value things like freedom. We see the state as a necessary evil. It is the threat and application of violence that should only be used in defense of natural rights of man.

I can say that knowing that there might be some conservatives that disagree with me on when the power of the state should be employed, but the basic concept of the state as a necessary evil is conservative philosophy.

Progress can be good, but it is not inherently good. It is not good when progress results in fewer freedoms.

Note that the state does have a role to play, but it is not all-encompassing. It is a hammer, and you only use a hammer when you need to nail something. If there's a screw loose, you don't use a hammer, but rather a screwdriver.

Isn't it amazing that I can actually go into specifics here which can be applied to things like obamacare, and you can easily see that since healthcare is not a natural right, obamacare is an improper use of the state. This is why conservatives do not like obamacare. Abortion is distasteful to conservatives because the life that is killed is an innocent human being who has the right to life, just as surely as a convicted murderer has given up that right to life because they took the life of another.

This is why conservatives are easy to figure out. We have moral principles based on natural rights of man, which is a product of the enlightenment. The declaration of independence says "inalienable rights" and that is just another way of talking about natural rights. Our founding fathers fought bitterly over the wording of the constitution because there isn't complete agreement on these things, but it close enough to eventually convince the states to ratify it. Tomes have been written about these ideas from the likes of Locke, Mill, Paine, Jefferson, and even Thoreau.

your turn...

 

Wasn't it you who admitted what I said is Episcopal canon?

 

No, I'm interested in no discrimination.

Requiring that people be treated equally is not discrimination. That is opposition to discrimination.

You want to claim some sort of exemption that you think allows religious people to discriminate against others - and that is ridiculous. Not even the Pope agrees with you on that.

 

Conservatives value freedom? I don't think so. I was in Gilmer, TX a few years back. I had no freedom to buy booze thanks to conservatives. I know women who need health care services in Texas, conservatives took away their options for PP because of freedom. I remember a fertilizer plant blowing up half a town in Texas taking away the freedom to live without fear of death for its neighbors because conservatives wanted the freedom to not have any inspectors or regulations. The kids in Flint lost their freedom to drink safe water because of conservatives. Atheists are not free in most of the Bible Belt, sure they can live in the shadows but they are persecuted publicly and in some cases by their very own governments who demand Christianity because of their freedoms. Conservatives dont want freedom, they want obedience.

 

But then you wouldn't be trolling as the OP of this thread clearly was.

 

Many more liberal minded people like myself embrace the above as well. I am not a liberal, I identify as an independent but I lean left of center.

The status quo can be good, but it is not inherently good.

Just as it is not good when the status quo results in fewer freedoms.

What is proper or improper is relative to the individual thus subjective.

Yet not all conservatives are against Obama are.

Yet a left leaning person like me is against abortion because I see the boundary that seperates an action from an immoral action as harm and as abortion harms a developing human life it is immoral by my measure or morality.

Perhaps where you and I disagree is if you view the left and the right as steriotypes rather than each group being a complex amalgam of differing views and ideologies.

What are those natural rights, who gets to decide this for all and by what authority?

Yet through much of our history those rights were largely limited to white men.

Paine left the revolution over a disagreement with Washington on abolition which Washington was against. It is not possible to be for slavery and freedom as they are mutually exclusive terms.

 

The dry counties of Texas are something of an anachronism, but the reasons for that is because the locals like their peace and quiet. If you want booze, you drive over to the next county and stock up. The plus side is that you don't have a bunch of drunk Texans hitting the roads after the bar closes.

You can point to any part of the government and say "this is reducing our freedom" and you'd be right. You can nitpick all day long, but even the people in those dry states will not disagree with my basic description of conservative values. There are disagreements over the implementation, but rarely over the philosophy.

I note that instead of pointing to a political ideology that drives progressive politics, you decided to try and pick holes in a political ideology you don't even agree with.

But why do you disagree with it?

 

"Progressive values" is like hot ice cubes.

I dunno, maybe wanting a grown man in lipstick to be able to pee alongside a little girl in a public restroom is a value?

 

Partially. The Episcopal church is splitting over its idea that major social policies should be accommodated even when they are against scripture, it has already had one major split and will probably have more. What is now the Episcopal Church USA has left scripture for popular social acceptance and is informally not even considered a Christian church.

Other major Christian denominations such as Baptists, Catholics, Assembly of God, Anglican, maintain the sanctity of marriage and family.

 

You are absolutely correct. My parents are raging left-wing progressives, as are my siblings. That said, there are more things we agree upon ideologically than we disagree on, yet it seems like there is a fundamental difference as to the implementation that I just don't understand. We're almost at war over these differences, and I'm truly curious as to why.

I disagree. I think there are maxims that each side draws a line in the sand with, and we don't budge. The biggest problem seems to be a bull-headed refusal to agree on anything. If a republican says "turn right" a democrat will say "turn left" simply out of hatred for the other guy. This is why I find the topic interesting.

The perfect state of natural rights is one man alone. You ask who gets to decide what his rights are, and that's the guy. He has natural limitations such as not being able to bring the mountain to him. He can, however, go to the mountain. He can take a dump wherever he squats, and has any number of trees to water if he needs to take a leak.

Everything he can do is his natural right.

Then we add another man. This presents a problem because the two cannot occupy the same area at the same time. The are separate individuals, but share a common environment. They have to agree upon some rules so that neither man is causing any more of a disturbance than necessary. These rules they agree upon become "law", and that is the basis of a government. It's an unfortunate necessity, but it is necessary.

Now add another guy, and democracy, and two of the guys decide that the other guy better pick nuts and berries for them because picking nuts and berries is highly overrated if you don't have to. And we've got democracy, right? The problem with that is that it's totally unfair, and that represents the problem with democracy.

And they were wrong. The abolitionists of the day could be likened to the animal rights activists of today. Blacks were seen as farm animals, and that eventually resulted in the civil war.

We're not perfect, dude. That was much needed progress, and now we're better because of it. I think this is another one of those things that both sides agree with these days.

Washington obviously liked his BBQ, I guess.

 

Of course SCOTUS decided long ago that rights do not have to be "natural".....we can decide on new rights at any time

 

If you are a statist, then naturally you would go along with whatever scotus says.

Why bring something like that up? Maybe to point to why true conservatives can't let another damn progressive that thinks the text of the constitution are irrelevant?

Why can't we not agree on basic English? The second amendment says "shall not infringe" and we can't even agree on the definition of infringe. I can wave a hundred dictionaries at you all agreeing with me, and you'd close your eyes, plug your ears, and bury your head in the sand refusing to even believe in the English language.

 

All people value freedom without realize it. It's just some are willing to give away freedoms for tax payer funded government free stuff or subsidies.

 

Wrong, you are believing the media spin on the Pope's statements.

The Pope believes that the act of homosexuality is a sin, but homosexuals are people who deserve care and consideration just as all people do. In other words, gay people are fine as long as they do not commit homosexual acts (sin).

The Pope has repeatedly stated that "gender theory" is false teaching and an attack on the family.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/p...heory-a-third-time-the-family-is-under-attack

“Gender theory is an error of the human mind that leads to so much confusion," he said. “So the family is under attack.” As to how to deal with the “secularization” or the “ideological colonization,” the pope said he does not have the answer. He pointed however to the Synod on the Family, which he called inspired by the Lord.

The comments echo those made in an in-flight interview Pope Francis gave while returning from Manila in the Philippines on January 19, 2015. Francis lamented the Western practice of imposing a homosexual agenda on other nations through foreign aid, which he called a form of “ideological colonization” and compared it to the Nazi propaganda machine.

Asked by a reporter to explain the phrase “ideological colonization,” the pope gave an example from 1995 when, he says, a minister of education in a poor area was told she could have a loan for building schools so long as the schools used a book that taught “gender theory.”

"This is ideological colonization,” he said. “It colonizes the people with an idea that wants to change a mentality or a structure." This ideological colonization, he added, “is not new, the dictators of the last century did the same.” "They came with their own doctrine. Think of the BalilLa (The Fascist Youth under Mussolini), think of the Hitler youth."​

And here the Pope makes it clear that a person including a government official has the right to refuse service if providing that service is objectionable:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/t...government-officials-and-gay-marriage-146747/

Terry Moran, ABC News: Holy Father, thank you, thank you very much and thank you to the Vatican staff as well. Holy Father, you visited the Little Sisters of the Poor and we were told that you wanted to show your support for them and their case in the courts. And, Holy Father, do you also support those individuals, including government officials, who say they cannot in good conscience, their own personal conscience, abide by some laws or discharge their duties as government officials, for example in issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples? Do you support those kinds of claims of religious liberty?

Pope Francis: I can't have in mind all cases that can exist about conscientious objection. But, yes, I can say conscientious objection is a right that is a part of every human right. It is a right. And if a person does not allow others to be a conscientious objector, he denies a right. Conscientious objection must enter into every juridical structure because it is a right, a human right. Otherwise we would end up in a situation where we select what is a right, saying 'this right that has merit, this one does not.' It (conscientious objection) is a human right. It always moved me when I read, and I read it many times, when I read the Chancon Roland, when the people were all in line and before them was the baptismal font – the baptismal font or the sword. And, they had to choose. They weren't permitted conscientious objection. It is a right and if we want to make peace we have to respect all rights.

(A CNA editor notes that "Chancon Roland" is a reference to a poem, "Song of Roland in which Crusaders forced Muslims to choose between being baptized or being killed by the sword. The Pope says they were not allowed to choose conscientious objection.")

Terry Moran, ABC News: Would that include government officials as well?

Pope Francis: It is a human right and if a government official is a human person, he has that right. It is a human right.

​

 

There is a difference between valuing freedom and being a parasite. I have to work to live, and a portion of what I earn is taken from me by the government and given to parasites.

That's a big difference between conservatives and progressives. One that they argue is necessary for life for some, but at my expense. Life is not a natural right.

Maybe this is something the progressives can answer. Why do I have to work so that other people can pay for their rheumatism medicine? How the hell did we go from government being a necessary evil to health care being necessary?

 

You will go along with what scotus says too or you will face the full consequences of breaking the law. We have rights other than natural rights for a generation. That will never change

- - - Updated - - -

Life is not a natural right???? Now that is hilarious

 

Thank you Ayn Rand. Let us know when you have an original thought.

Nice that you think of the disabled and elderly as parasites...

 

Some arguments are based upon a premise so foreign that it seems nonsensical thus making it impossible to understand. But from time to time something can for whatever reason nudge our perspective a bit which allows for a new perspective which upon reexamination of a foreign view brings said view into focus making what was once nonsensical become sensible.

To understand liberals aka progressivism is to understand the varying views of a diverse group of people numbering in the many millions. Know what all progressives believe in? Change. The problem of defining it any further is that what one perceives as positive change is relative to an individual assessment thus subjective.

Such as?

There are those in both camps that do the above. I chalk it up to a bias practiced by some on both sides.

And if that guy and another guy disagree then what?

And if the 3rd man does not agree with either of the other two? Here on the forums I see many different takes on the same topic thus an object demonstration of how subjective many subjects are.

I agree, but the above applies to political parties also but instead of laws they have a political platform. But as we are seeing now in both parties that there is much disagreement upon what that platform is or should be.

I completely agree but do not see a better alternative. Unless we all decide to live apart and never come into contact there will always be those who say that they are not being treated fairly.

Indeed thus an example of progressivism in our society even though some saw abolition as anything but progress.

I do not think we are that far apart and would bet that if we were to sit down and chat for a while that we would likely agree on more than we disagree. I think the squeaky wheels on both the left and the right get the most press but do not represent liberalism or conservatism as a whole.

 

Did I say they weren't methods hetero couples use to have kids?

I said that no matter how you spin it-there is a man involved somewhere, somehow.

 

You missed the point entirely.

The issue was discrimination.

The Pope called for greater acceptance of those who are same sex oriented.


The idea that Christians should have the "right" to discriminate against them isn't consistent with his statement.