AOC: The true face of the DNC

@wallstreetcappers

 Correct.  

We are very far apart since I am far-Right and you are very Left-leaning on these views.

It is that sort of complacency that spreads and meantime the other side is not so tolerant and grows.  The other side 'forces' their behavior on you whether you want it or not.

Then you have become accepting of something in society that you never would at home.  Then when your own family succumbs to it you have to be accepting there as well.

It is almost ladder-logic -- one side grows and becomes even more intolerant and forceful, while the other side shrinks.

The problem with that logic is that the overwhelming majority of folks have always known what is 'bad'.  But now they are allowing the 'fringe' to grow quite unchecked.

If you, supposedly, do not allow it at home (or teach against it) -- then innately you recognize it as bad.  But think it is wrong to speak out against it in society as a whole.

That is the case with a lot of people.  It stems from the same sentiment of the people that do not want to get involved, etc.  You cannot have a society where it is a free-for-all and everyone doing whatever they feel is okay just because they like it or want to.  It simply leads downhill and gathers speed.  A good moral, law-abiding society is simply better.

Sarah Palin still ranks high up there. Has anyone seen her lately? Has she started to look like an old lady.

@Raiders22

 A good moral, law-abiding society is simply better.

Says a very extremist Christian right wing supporter, that phrase is pretty toxic right there and very very  judgmental. I also found your use of "allow" in the home offensive, is that how you exist in your home that you allow or do not allow "moral" precepts? 

Moral and law abiding are not altruistic terms because moral is defined by the person who has the values that they do, so "moral" to you is draconian to many and "moral" to some IS breaking the law so you cant put definitions of Christianity as a standard, nor can as we discussed the other day insist or wish for Christian dogma to be displayed and directed in society because to many those ideologies are oppressive, offensive, draconian and abusive...and they are right in that assessment. I am Christian but for sure not to the level of oppression that you discuss. I was raised EXTREMELY ULTRA conservative to a point of harm and I still see that style of family existing right now and many consider that acceptable and good ole days and "good moral law abiding" behavior. I found it excessive, repressive, discriminatory, abusive and very much shame driven as a means of control. I took from that upbring that there was a better way and I try to find balance and acceptance, I exist in society in a very open fashion to how I see others and make decisions. It is humorous you consider me being open and accepting as left leaning...lol that is quite far from the truth but hey it fits your ultra conservative mindset and you have made that quite clear many times in the past. 

Christ for sure was not the Christian that you seem to express as good and law abiding and a standard for what society should be, Christ was a socialist commune living consecrationist and his example and life, his sacrifice and purpose is lost in the churches and dogma in most all of those who think they follow him.

@wallstreetcappers

 I think you are too hung up on the religion part of it.

Remove religion from it and look at it.  No other non-Christian society allows (and certainly does not promote) this behavior in the past.

In order to support your position you have to be able to demonstrate two things:  How it is good AND why it has never been done before with longterm success.

The only people it really benefits are the fringe group that want its acceptance.  

Just allowing a fringe group their 'happiness' does not mean it is good for society, necessarily.  It for sure does not mean it is good when you allow them to be intolerant about forcing its acceptance onto everyone else.

It was a slow process -- 'what you do at home is fine and no one cares'; now it is out in the open -- and then 'forced' for acceptance by everyone else.

They are just as intolerant if not more so.

But if you take religion out of it and look at it -- you run into the exact problems with it.

Why have all societies not 'evolved' into this behavior if it is so good.  Why do even the societies that are isolated in the Amazon, or such, not adopted this with glee -- since it would make society so much better.

Just because one person wants his 'morals' or, lack thereof, 'forced' onto everyone else does not mean it makes everyone else better.

I have addressed how Jesus handled and condemned the behavior already.  Certainly He was the example of how to do it.  He did not accept the behavior and He certainly did not promote it.  Again, this ties in with the 'love the sinner but not the sin' as well as condemning the behavior in a kind and compassionate way.

I understand if you were raised ultra-Conservative that maybe it shaped your views and makes you have a disdain for it.  But again, you cannot judge the whole group by intolerant radicals amongst that group.

It is very hard to understand how you can make an argument where good morals is not good for a society overall.  The evidence counter to that is evident and overwhelming.

Sometimes the attitudes of 'I do not want anyone telling me what to do or how to behave' and 'live and let live' and 'as long as they are not hurting anyone else' need to be re-examined.  

This can, and does, still do harm.

This is riveting . We need more of these kinds of threads . To be totally transparent , like a well saturated wet tee shirt in a contest , I’m so far on the edge of my seat that I slipped off that motherfucker a couple of times and bruised my tookis . No jokes okay . Great thread boys . Keep up the good convo .

@wallstreetcappers

 For example, there are very many atheists, non-Christian religious folks, or just agnostic sort of folks.  

To them it is NOT a religious issue at all.  It is a societal and civil issue(s) that they have with it.

I know a lot of folks that are not religious in the least that are against what is going on now.

That is why I say it is innate to most folks; it does not have to be religion only.  They are simply the scapegoats people use when they want to 'complain' that they are not allowed to 'promote' this moral 'behavior' to everyone else -- especially the youth.

@wallstreetcappers

@Raiders22

Without going over the entire correspondence, just what kind of behavior are we talking about? Legit crimes, i.e. theft, vandalism, etc or just smoking poles and butt stuff, LGBT stuff? A society is not a society without law and order. However, there is a big difference between judicial law and what a member of any particular religion may find morally offensive.

When you say, "...what is going on now," what exactly are you talking about?

 He was mainly taking about the behavior part -- yes LGBT etc.  But I was saying that you can make the case as well that allowing that sort of behavior deteriorates the fabric of society and other things -- even petty crimes are not see as bad, etc.

They will say it is a clear decline in values and moral in society from the past that has led to a lot of the issue we have in society now.

For example, fatherless homes and crime etc.  Things that were seen in the past as immoral or unacceptable now are not.  Then it leads to other things that are unwanted in society, etc.

@StumpTownStu

 butt stuff 

So you think same sex relationships are deteriorating the fabric of society? Interesting.

@StumpTownStu

 So you think same sex relationships are deteriorating the fabric of society? Interesting.

Of course.  

It was never going to be just that.  If it was just that -- then the argument might be able to be made of 'so what?'.

But now look at the offshoots of that and the intolerance of that fringe when you do not accept it and allow them to promote it, even to kids.

This is not the sort of thing that affects 50, 60, or 70-year olds.  It is the youth that are having the problems with it.

So, yes, these things can affect society in a very wide range of issues.

Then you can see it almost as the 'neural networking' into other things.

@kcblitzkrieg

 Bro, all my inner circle homies know I be about eating that ass. No shame in my game. My wife isn't really into though so go figure.

@StumpTownStu

 I see now they have posted street signs in SF that theft must be under $950.

Ok, bro. What about adultery? What about sexual deviance among heterosexuals? I think you are casting aspersions based on generalities and wives' tales. Reefer madness stuff. "That's where it starts! First lil Johnny is just looking at some fitness magazines. Next thing you know society is upended." "They're coming for our kids!"

A couple dudes, a couple chicks being in love is NOT what's wrong with society. Not by a longshot. And it baffles me that bible thumpers choose that as their soap box issue, their rallying cry, when things like adultery, etc are seemingly given a pass.

@StumpTownStu

 Then they want to know if I am coming to SF/LV football game -- I say at least it is in Vegas.

@Raiders22

 Yeah your perspective for sure is shaped based on what you feel is acceptable versus what others feel is and it shows in the examples you give and the positions that you hold. I am saying that my personal beliefs DO vary from society but that does not mean I think that my views are what is best for society and YOU do feel that way.

You make repeated claims about what is getting worse in society and correlating it to certain things then comparing it to the past and correlating that with society and that implies you feel that as you stated many times above moral and socially acceptable is what we saw in the past. I lived through the past and saw that as repression, draconian control methods that religions use to accomplish their narrative. Society now in its decline is not about what sexual preference is allowed or if you are a MF family unit, nor was the past an example of a GREAT family unit when men were dominating households, women were being abused and the men who really were bisexual or not straight found ways around this by being in the closet or acting out to suppress or going to awful counselling to try and change behavior..all religious guilt based nonsense that does little good and plenty of harm. 

The good old days of Christian oppression were great for your side because hey you got your way and things went as you deemed socially correct but for MANY it was not great it was brutal terrorizing oppression. The fact that a group that DID exist now feels safe to come into society is somewhat center stage that does not mean the decline of society is attributed to that in the slightest. If you were TRULY Christian their narrative would not impact you at all and if you felt  there was flaws in the school systems due to outliers and extremists then you could choose to address it in numerous ways. I feel the school system in my upbring was largely slanted to a Christianity oppressive approach and that was very toxic and unacceptable. I think religion has NO place in society and ANY inclusion of ANY religion is as wrong and inappropriate as some of the sexual nonsense forwarded in some schools now.

Our nature has not changed, we are no different than from 50 or 100 years ago the only difference is fear has declined the freedom of expression has expanded and people are TRYING to find themselves in different ways than in the past...this does not mean a social decline. I would say the true reason for social decline is the lack of involvement of parents in the lives of their children and families. We are too obsessed with self interest and buying spending and self gratification. The selfish nature of society and the way we have been programed to buy and be superior to others leads to more selfish behavior. People are responsible based on their selfish nature and that has not changed but the velocity of selfishness has.

Yeah. Things haven't been as bad recently. Some areas are ready to fall off the map, and drug/grocery stores are getting the worst of it but when you hear about department stores closing, it's not so much theft. It's mostly just people don't shop at those stores anymore.

The $950 thing is upsetting though. And it has been a long known thing that cops are investigating, and the courts aren't prosecuting petty theft. 15 years ago you could have your car broken into, have your stereo, camera, etc stolen, see and point out the culprit, and the cops are shrugging their shoulders.

The Niners play in Santa Clara, not SF. And there are plenty of low crime, clean, walkable neighborhoods in SF. And even the grimy downtown areas, you are generally safer in SF than many major cities.

@StumpTownStu

Correct.  Because that is not where it stopped, etc.  

It is also not the SOLE reason.  As, I said these things add up and slowly creep in and affect other areas.

For sure, the kids are the most easily influenced and affected group.  

I think the Bible thumpers using it as a soap box is actually a very, very perfect example of it.  They used to rail against adultery, etc.  Then that slowly became 'accepted' behavior.  So, now they pick up another issue.  But soon that issue will be accepted and they will move to something else.  They get overwhelmed.

Absolutely you can make a case for adultery being bad for society.  You can tie it directly to fatherless homes and crime and prison problems.  But now it is fully accepted by both religious and non-religious.

Then the other lifestyles became more accepted.

The question is how soon before the current ones are fully accepted -- even though the evidence on how it is affecting the kids is already piling up.

@wallstreetcappers

 Yeah your perspective for sure is shaped based on what you feel is acceptable versus what others feel is and it shows in the examples you give and the positions that you hold. I am saying that my personal beliefs DO vary from society but that does not mean I think that my views are what is best for society and YOU do feel that way.

Absolutely.  We are all that way.  

I am simply pointing out that you are incorrect and it has already proven to not be good for society.

So, for it to stand you have to show why it is good and how -- not just that it makes the fringe group happy to do as they please.

This is where we are disagreeing. The "where it starts" narrative. The notion that accepting same sex coupling automatically leads to more deviant behaviors, or the acceptance of such things. This is a fallacy. People are people. Morally right people in healthy relationships are who they are. Deviants are deviants. There isn't this correlation we like to make between the LGBTQ community and the degradation of out collective moral compass. They are simply the scapegoat.

I am %100 with you that the loss of the god-fearing nuclear family is arguably the biggest threat to our society. I just think it's a general people issue and not so much on the alphabet gang.

@wallstreetcappers

 Society now in its decline is not about what sexual preference is allowed or if you are a MF family unit, nor was the past an example of a GREAT family unit when men were dominating households, women were being abused and the men who really were bisexual or not straight found ways around this by being in the closet or acting out to suppress or going to awful counselling to try and change behavior..all religious guilt based nonsense that does little good and plenty of harm. 

This is a classic sidestep that a lot of folks use.  Again, you cannot simply take the extreme abuses of a segment and present it as a reason for another position.

No one is claiming abusing women was good.  That was by far a small section of the overall number of families.

For sure, there are always exceptions --women should not be in abusive situations.

All counseling is not awful; there are many great counselors.

It is nonsense to try to argue that a good and decent family unit is not the best possible option for a good moral society.  

Again, the evidence is plain.

@wallstreetcappers

 The good old days of Christian oppression were great for your side because hey you got your way and things went as you deemed socially correct but for MANY it was not great it was brutal terrorizing oppression.

I am not sure why you insist on grouping everyone in with the 'Christian oppressors'.  I just explained to you that you can take religion out of it and come to the same conclusion. 

Where else has this worked.  

What do you say to folks that do NOT use 'oppressive Christiainity' that voice the same concerns.