Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Just what does progress mean? « previous next »
Page: 1 2

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#15 : November 09, 2008, 01:52:56 PM

To effectively change anything, it has to be voted on by the people and the law be approved by the Supreme Court (if it gets that far).

Really?

So the people voted on lifting the ban on interracial marriage? Or did the SC make the ruling because it was the right thing
to do when the Loving case was brought before them?

The SC has made other important rulings that have help us make progress in this country. And the citizens had no say in the
matter. That's a good thing. I'd venture to guess that there are still people in this country who are upset that blacks and women
can vote. Those people are wrong and have always been wrong.


3paths

****
Starter

Posts : 409
Offline
#16 : November 09, 2008, 02:12:02 PM

The next phase for progress is allowing gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion, etc. The farther we get away from the ancient rulebook (Bible), the better off we are.
Interesting. So could you please tell me how gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion will help this country as a whole?

And funny, if you look at the the world nations which didn't start with the Bible as their basis and compare that to their level of prosperity...What does it look like over in China, Russia, Africa, the Middle East, the rest of the far east? They are far from the Bible and look at them? Seem more attractive to you? I'm just asking questions that's all.

Uncle Stan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 17509
Offline
#17 : November 09, 2008, 02:14:44 PM

"So the people voted on lifting the ban on interracial marriage? Or did the SC make the ruling because it was the right thing to do when the Loving case was brought before them?"

Guess the people answered that it was wrong by the CA Supreme Court.  Really

Learn to disagree without being disagreeable-Ronald Reagan circa 1981

John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#18 : November 09, 2008, 02:42:55 PM

"Progress" is short for "Progressive" meaning the idea of radical change to promote an agenda aimed at what the person feels is a higher level of social living.

Wrong. Progress is the root word. It comes from the latin words Pro gressus: to move forward or towards. Progressive is a adjective derivative of progress. Progress is the older word and cannot be short for the newer word. That is like say Bob Sr. was named after his son.

The noun form of "progressive" means favoring change towards improvement. "Radical" is not part of the definition.

Since your opening assumption is invalid, any arguements and conclusions based on it are also invalid.

Progressives feel that not even the constitution should be solid law...that it should be changed (with or without society's consent) if it promotes the progressive utopian ideology.

That is actually not a bad definition of Progressive Politics. Too bad your initial assumption ruined it. Overall grade D-


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#19 : November 09, 2008, 02:50:58 PM

Stan,

What does that have to do with what I posted about interracial marriage?

Should the people be able to vote and reverse that too?

The people, if given the chance, might make cohabitation illegal again. It's already illegal in some
states and is actually enforced in certain situations dealing with people on probation.

And some religious folks feel it should be illegal and the laws on the books should be enforced. And
those same people would support making adultery illegal and keeping me from buying beer before
Noon on Sunday.



John Galt?

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 18831
Offline
#20 : November 09, 2008, 03:55:42 PM

I hear a lot of people throw in the word progress, especially Obama and UfoJoe, so what exactly is mean by that? What are we trying to progress towards. Because this is a football board, where is the proverbial "End Zone?"

Progress means movement forward and improvement. Where is the Endzone? That is the sticky question. In politics and economics, the "Endzone" keeps moving. And in this case "moving the goalposts" is a neccesary part of survival. If we don't move the endzone, what happens if we get there? Do we just quit and say "job well done, now go home"? Since the goal of society isn't stagnation, the endzone must always move.

Your real question is "What is the goal of progress?".  And in a relatively free society where most individuals are allowed to contribute to that goals definition, the diversity of the individuals leads to a vague illdefined goal. Some want political equality for all (even at the expense of economic goals), some want maximized economic opportunity (even at the expense of the welfare of individuals), some want economic equality (even at the expense of opportunity and political equality).

Currently our society is lacking a clear goal of progress because all the individual goals tend to be mutually exclusive.

In the early years of this Nations history, the clear goal of all was to become a politically and economicaly viable and sustainable country. By the 1820's-30s that goal had been acheived and two distinct new goals emerged 1. maintaining individual cultural and economic freedoms. 2. eliminating moral/political injustice (slavery). These goals soon became mutually exclusive resulting in civil war, depression, and regression (the opposite of progress). Following the Civil War, the new goal of society was expansion (economic and geographic). It was a single goal with little debate given to workers rights, displacement of other (native)people, etc. The Borders grew and the economy grew until we reached the geographic and economic limits. When we reached our goal of expansion our new goals became vague and cloudy and diverse. With no definitive goals came depression which led to a goal of economic equality. but before that goal saw much progress WWII gave us a new goal of military security and then military and international dominence. Now we have achieved that goal (after the Cold War) and we are back to vague and cloudy and diverse goals.

We as a Nation and a Society need to redefine and focus our goals. The Civil War, the Great Depression, and now are all times when our previous goals were attained and we as a society/Nation could not agree on the next goal. We need a specific direction to progress towards. We need a goal that is not easy to acheive but a bar that is set high and that we all agree is the bar to cross. Now is not the time to debate the merits of the destination, but the time to resume the journey. Now is when, while so many are arguing which road is better and why, we need someone to step forward and just say "THAT WAY!"


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7114
Offline
#21 : November 09, 2008, 05:23:13 PM

That's not a bad definition of the term JG, but it ignores the interpretation of those who use the term to define themselves. The term 'Progressive' was coined because the phrase 'liberal' was becoming a dirty word. Particularly with the Electorate. Subsequently we can legitimately equate 'progressive' with 'Liberal'. The question can therefore be spun around and coined in terms of 'What do Liberals define as progress'? They see society as being not dissimilar as that espoused by early communists, marxists and socialists. That is, everybody is equal. Now, the problem with that philosophy is that not only has it been proven that not everybody CAN be equal, simply because somebody, somewhere has to make the decisions, but it often leads to totalitarian regimes. Either that or bankruptcy. Just my opinion of course.

benchwarmer69

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 3966
Offline
#22 : November 10, 2008, 03:06:40 AM


The progress I was referring to in that thread is this:

One day, most of us will be able to put aside our previous feelings/judgments about blacks, hispanics, whites, gays, transgender folks, etc...

What will matter is how we treat each them and how they people treat us. Isn't that what it's all about? I really don't care if
somebody is gay or wants to wear a dress. It just doesn't affect me. That's their life and as long as they're happy and not
hurting anybody, who are we to judge their love and what it should look like? Some will say, "It's all about "me" with
these gays. They only care about pleasing themselves." Well, I think they want to be happy just like heterosexuals
want to be happy. Is there something wrong with that? Don't we all like to please ourselves from time to time?
And I'm not just talking about sex.

Gays have been criticized for living a promiscuous lifestyle. Now, when they want to do the traditional thing in marriage,
some people don't want them to be able to do it. Why? Because of the Bible. Make no mistake about it. The Bible
is the overwhelming reason why P8 passed.

More later...



I suppose we shouldn't have ill feelings towards rapist and murderers either. After all, they're just people too. Living they're lives...

If this is the "progression" you are talking about, then WHERE does it end? Lets legalize all wacky minority "wants"  ..That's the ticket!

And BTW, that vote was more about taking the rights away from heterosexuals than anything else. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day if you made their "union" into "marrages", then you might as well make "marrages" (man & woman) into something else. Eventually, someone will get jealious, and the whole thing starts all over again within 60 years time. REAL progressive....


3paths

****
Starter

Posts : 409
Offline
#23 : November 10, 2008, 08:32:45 AM

It's funny. It you want to talk about progress how about this Joe....Homosexuals have more legal protection than men of faith (any faith). You can get sued for your faith, but you can't be sued for being homosexual.

What benefit does society really gain from homosexual marriages? There are two gay guys that live across the street from me in a much bigger house and have much more money that I do. Seems like they are doing just fine. Since they aren't raising kids and they both work, I'm not going to cry a river about them not having the opportunity to be on the same health insurance policy. Why don't they try paying the astronomical rates that married couples need to pay to insure their families.

DBrooksIsMyDaddy

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1143
Offline
#24 : November 10, 2008, 09:24:17 AM

You can get sued for your faith?

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#25 : November 10, 2008, 09:55:16 AM

I suppose we shouldn't have ill feelings towards rapist and murderers either. After all, they're just people too. Living they're lives...

If you can't see the difference between those folks and the ones I'm talking about, there's no need to
debate it further.

And BTW, that vote was more about taking the rights away from heterosexuals than anything else. You can argue all you want, but at the end of the day if you made their "union" into "marrages", then you might as well make "marrages" (man & woman) into something else. Eventually, someone will get jealious, and the whole thing starts all over again within 60 years time. REAL progressive....

What the heck are you talking about?


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28986
Offline
#26 : November 10, 2008, 10:04:05 AM

It's funny. It you want to talk about progress how about this Joe....Homosexuals have more legal protection than men of faith (any faith). You can get sued for your faith, but you can't be sued for being homosexual.

Please explain. I haven't heard about this. Does it have to do with Catholic priest giving out bad
advice in confession that leads to something bad happening? I never heard of such a thing. I
know I can Google it but I'll leave it up to you to explain.

What benefit does society really gain from homosexual marriages?

What benefit does society really gain from heterosexual marriages? Two people want to
commit to their relationship. Isn't that a good thing no matter what their sexual preference?
For me personally, marriage is not needed. My wife agrees. We did it for various legal reasons
and the benefits. Neither one of us wears a ring. It's just not important.

There are two gay guys that live across the street from me in a much bigger house and have much
more money that I do. Seems like they are doing just fine.

How much money they make and how they're doing is irrelevant to the points we have been
discussing.

Since they aren't raising kids and they both work, I'm not going to cry a river about them not
having the opportunity to be on the same health insurance policy. Why don't they try paying
the astronomical rates that married couples need to pay to insure their families.

OK, that's where you were going with the money thing. But not every couple is so well off like
them.

There are so many benefits that same sex couples miss out on by not being able to marry and
in most states, not even being able to have a civil union. JG has explained a lot of those benefits
so you can search or ask him to list them again.

The most important thing when keeping gays from marrying and allowing them to have a civil
union instead, in some states? Separate But Equal. That's my opinion.

Time to get religion out of our decision making process.

Page: 1 2
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Just what does progress mean? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools