Posted by (+15490) 8 years ago
I am currently reading Moral Politics by George Lakoff. Excellent book. If you want to understand why Oddjob thinks the way he does, read this book. He is the poster child for the Strict Father morality model.
I should say at the outset that, though I have used the term “Strict Father” to name the model given, there are variants of the model that can be used by a strict mother as well. There are many mothers, especially tough single mothers, who function as strict fathers. But the model is an idealization, and is intended here only as that. I believe it is a cognitively real idealized model, that is, a model that Americans grow up knowing implicitly. There are variations on it and I will discuss some of them below. The Strict Father model presupposes a folk theory of human nature that I will call “folk behaviorism”: People, left to their own devices, tend simply to satisfy their desires. But, people will make themselves do things they don’t want to do in order to get rewards; they will refrain from doing things they do want to do in order to avoid punishment.
This is used in the Strict Father model on the assumption that punishment for violating strict moral rules and praise for following them will result in the child’s learning to obey those rules. The entire Strict Father model is based on the further assumption that the exercise of authority is itself moral; that is, it is moral to reward obedience and punish disobedience. I will refer to this most basic assumption as the Morality of Reward and Punishment.
Reward and punishment are moral not just for their own sake. They have a further purpose. The model assumes that life is struggle for survival. Survival in the world is a matter of competing successfully. To do so, children must learn discipline and build character. People are disciplined (punished) in order to become self-disciplined. The way self-discipline is learned and character is built is through obedience. Being an adult means that you have become sufficiently self-disciplined so that you can be your own authority. Obedience to authority thus does not disappear. Being self-disciplined is being obedient to your own authority, that is, being able to carry out the plans you make and the commitments you undertake. That is the kind of person you are supposed to be, and the Strict Father model of the family exists to ensure that a child becomes such a person.
There is also a pragmatic rationale for creating such people. It is that the world is difficult and people have to be self-disciplined to be able to survive in a difficult world. Rewards and punishments by the parent are thus moral because they help to ensure that the child will be able to survive on its own. Rewards and punishments thus benefit the child, which is why punishment for disobedience is understood as a form of love. According to this model, if you are obedient, you will become self-disciplined, and only if you are self-disciplined can you succeed. Success is therefore a sign of having been obedient and having become self-disciplined. Success is a just reward for acting within this moral system. This makes success moral.
Competition is a crucial ingredient in such a moral system. It is through competition that we discover who is moral, that is, who has been properly self-disciplined and therefore deserves success, and who is fit enough to survive and even thrive in a difficult world. Rewards given to those who have not earned them through competition are thus immoral. They violate the entire system. They remove the incentive to become self-disciplined and they remove the need for obedience to authority.
But if a person is to be this way, the world must be a certain way too. The world must be and must remain a competitive place. Without competition, there is no source of reward for self-discipline, no motivation to become the right kind of person. If competition were removed, self-discipline would cease and people would cease to develop and use their talents. The individual’s authority over himself would decay. People would no longer be able to make plans, undertake commitments, and carry them out. Competition therefore is moral; it is a condition for the development and sustenance of the right kind of person. Correspondingly, constraints on competition are immoral; they inhibit the development and sustenance of the right kind of person.
Even if survival were not an issue, even if the world could be made easier, even if there were a world of plenty with more than enough for everybody, it would still not be true that parceling out a comfortable amount for everyone would make the world better and people better. Doing that would remove the incentive to become and remain self-disciplined. Without the incentive of reward and punishment, self-discipline would disappear, and people would no longer be able to make plans, undertake commitments, and carry them out. All social life would come to a grinding halt. To prevent this, competition and authority must be maintained no matter how much material largesse we produce.
If competition is a necessary state in a moral world— necessary for producing the right kind of people— then what kind of a world is a moral world? It is necessarily one in which some people are better off than others, and they deserve to be. It is a meritocracy. It is hierarchical, and the hierarchy is moral. In this hierarchy, some people have authority over others and their authority is legitimate. Moreover, legitimate authority imposes responsibility. Just as the strict father has a duty to support and protect his family, so those who have risen to the top have a responsibility to exercise their legitimate authority for the benefit of all under their authority. This means: 1. Maintaining order; that is, sustaining and defending the system of authority itself. 2. Using that authority for the protection of those under one’s authority. 3. Working for the benefit of those under one’s authority, especially helping them through proper discipline to become the right kind of people. 4. Exercising one’s authority to help create more self-disciplined people, that is, the right kind of people, for their own benefit, for the benefit of others, and because it is the right thing to do.
This model of the family does not occur alone and isolated in one’s conceptual system. To accept this model of the family is also to accept implicitly certain moral priorities that naturally go with it, many of which are metaphorical in nature. These moral priorities are directly expressed in priorities given to certain metaphors we all have in our conceptual systems. Such a set of moral priorities, together with the above vision of what a person should be and what the world should be like, is what I will call Strict Father morality.
Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:Lakoff, George (2010-12-15). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Second Edition (Kindle Locations 1106-1109). University of Chicago Press. Kindle Edition.
J. Dyba wrote:it quickly descended into something quite the opposite, resembling the indoctrination that history revisionists have become so expert in instilling.While I still think one of the deepest roots to our current problems is the clinging we do to a Left vs Right facade of democracy, this book takes a noble stab at trying to explain why.
Donald Mullikin wrote:it quickly descended into something quite the opposite, resembling the indoctrination that history revisionists have become so expert in instilling.
I consider this book to be anything but an idle academic exercise. Because conservatives understand the moral dimension of our politics better than liberals do, they have been able not only to gain political victories but to use politics in the service of a much larger moral and cultural agenda for America, an agenda that if carried out would, I believe, destroy much of the moral progress made in the twentieth century. Liberals have been helpless to stop them, largely, I think, because they don’t understand the conservative worldview and the role of moral idealism and the family within it.
Moreover, liberals do not fully comprehend the moral unity of their own politics and the role that the family plays in it. Liberals need to understand that there is an overall, coherent liberal politics which is based on a coherent, well-grounded, and powerful liberal morality. If liberals do not concern themselves very seriously and very quickly with the unity of their own philosophy and with morality and the family, they will not merely continue to lose elections but will as well bear responsibility for the success of conservatives in turning back the clock on progress in America.
Conservatives know that politics is not just about policy and interest groups and issue-by-issue debate. They have learned that politics is about family and morality, about myth and metaphor and emotional identification. They have, over twenty-five years, managed to forge conceptual links in the voters’ minds between morality and public policy. They have done this by carefully working out their values, comprehending their myths, and designing a language to fit those values and myths so that they can evoke them with powerful slogans, repeated over and over again, that reinforce those family-morality-policy links, until the connections have come to seem natural to many Americans, including many in the media. As long as liberals ignore the moral, mythic, and emotional dimension of politics, as long as they stick to policy and interest groups and issue-by-issue debate, they will have no hope of understanding the nature of the political transformation that has overtaken this country and they will have no hope of changing it.
Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:Well, I'm going to explain it this way, we'll see who is paying attention: We should help our neighbor protect and improve his goods and his means of making a living. We should speak well of our neighbor and put the best construction on everything we say about him. It's all based on love, empathy, and nurture of others and recognizing that we need to do our part to help our neighbor and strengthen the community.
Bridgier wrote:NOW GO OUT THERE AND GET YOURSELF GAYMARRIED ASAP!
Donald Mullikin wrote:Said another way, the liberal majority are those who crave control of everything to limit everyone's personal lives rather than let anyone enjoy freedom to Pursue Life, Liberty, and Individual or Family Happiness. And their morality is that which is forced down the throats of any who might disagree or actually have morality based in a reasonable religious belief.
David Schott wrote:Donald, who wants to "enjoy freedom to Pursue Life, Liberty, and Individual or Family Happiness" dislikes Bridgier and other liberals who seem to be fighting for the very thing he holds dear.
Donald Mullikin wrote:"Liberals (Who are all about bigger Government -- instituting greater control of the people through permitting of fewer rights while working toward complete socialism though socialized medicine, unrestricted borders, and financial equalization reassignment)..."
Richard Bonine wrote:I believe that love and kindness toward our neighbors and community is not found in a single act; it is a lifestyle. It's all about making the lives of others more livable by showing them love, kindness and respect. Sometimes it is as simple as giving some obviously stressed waiter 40% instead of 15%. Other times its being actively involved in making sure that the community doesn't discriminate against certain groups of people.
David Schott wrote:Republicans favor smaller government?
"Unrestricted borders" equates to greater control of people?
"Financial equalization reassignment"? Say what? Did you just make that up?
•The first chart is inflation adjusted, displaying all dollar amounts in constant fiscal year 2005 dollars, as provided by the Office of Management and Budget.
•Therefore, dollar amounts prior to year 2005 are inflated and dollar amounts after 2005 are deflated. For example, U.S. federal government expenditures in 1940 were $9.5 billion dollars; that spending level is the equivalent of $117.8 billion in 2005 dollars. Likewise, U.S. federal government expenditures in 2009 were $3,517.7 billion dollars; that spending level is the equivalent of $3,176.8 billion in 2005 dollars.
you sound likea Republican who doesn't want to be called a Republican.
David Schott wrote:Donald are you saying that a chart that tracks spending over time should not be inflation-adjusted?
Bridgier wrote:I see something interesting in the slopes of that graph donald provided, but I'm sure its just an artifact of manipulation.
Bridgier wrote:Regardless, if someone other than clinton hadn't decided that the roooskies and the chinese were bigger threats than al-queida, then 9/11 might have been less likely to happen under his watch. Oh well.
Donald Mullikin wrote:"That is not what I am saying and it is."
Donald Mullikin wrote:Would you care to relate that logically to the conversation?
Or are you simply sated by tossing out irrelevant information that has nothing to do with downsizing either the Armed Forces or Government?
Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:Government is simply the best mechanism to efficiently organize and complete such duty on a large scale.
Oddjob wrote:Liberals don't have a lock on love, kindness and compassion for their fellow human beings. They just think they do.
Oddjob wrote:What liberals do have a lock on, is a shared delusion that they all occupy some mythical "moral high-ground" from whence they have a divine right to instill the tenets of "freedom", "liberty" and "democracy".
Oddjob wrote:That is, until the "freedom" and "liberty" of certain humans offends the liberal, or is deemed "insensitive" by the group-think. When that occurs, liberals seek to use government and the courts to limit the "freedom" and "liberty" of the offending person or group.
Oddjob wrote:Richard Bonine, Jr. wrote:Government is simply the best mechanism to efficiently organize and complete such duty on a large scale.
That's why liberals love big government. Especially one they control.
Oddjob wrote:"Liberal morality" IS moral politics.
Bridgier wrote:So, the freedoms of the majority should obviously outweigh the freedoms of the minority?
Bridgier wrote:I wonder if Oddy & Donald use today to reflect upon the moral underpinnings of the American Colonization. Slavery, theft and murder would seem to be things that should fall squarely into the 'immoral' bucket, but I'm probably wrong (I usually am).
originally posted by Oddjob
Bridgier
Take today to reflect on the 150 million murdered in the 20th Century by the Leftists/Marxist/Communists. Doesn't seem to bother you as much as who's symbol it takes place under.
Abortions per year: 1.2 million
You might want to mention how one party tends to expound upon the evils of how guns are to blame for the thousands of lives lost to gun murders every year, yet completely ignore the greater number of human deaths caused by abortion, and will defend the funding to support abortions to their dying breaths.
You only need to look at how they are aghast and trying to reverse the SCOTUS decision that Hobby Lobby and other Employers can opt out of funding any healthcare that would resemble funding birth-control or abortions.
Said another way, supporters of abortion; support the Murder of innocent lives.
Richard Bonine, Jr.
Except that given the timeframe when 99% of abortions occur... it isn't murder, because it isn't live.
Abortion clinic employee Sherry West described an incident which “really freaked (her) out” and related to the jury how she heard a child scream who was born alive following an abortion.
“Because of publicity surrounding the trial of Kermit Gosnell and subsequent revelations about other abortionists, many Americans are becoming aware for the first time that abortions are frequently performed late in pregnancy on babies who are capable of being born alive, and on babies who will experience great pain while being killed,” Johnson tells NRLC.
Medical personnel are unable to tell the difference between a miscarriage or abortion so if one lives in a country where there is possible prosecution for performing a self induced abortion, there is no reason to tell anyone that an abortion was attempted.
Now, please explain to me where a political party supporting the continued practice of abortions, is in any way moral.
posted by Donald Mullikin
Now, please explain to me where a political party supporting the continued practice of abortions, is in any way moral.
Richard Bonine, Jr.
I am going to do just that... this is a great time to explain the difference in worldview between conservatives and liberals. Hopefully, you will be open-minded enough to try and understand both sides of the issue.
First, we need to define some terms; namely: embryo, fetus, and baby.
Embryo: an embryo is the product of conception more organized than just a collection of cells, but not yet recognizable as a member of the species.
Richard Bonine, Jr.
Fetus: a fetus is a further stage of the organism, but one not yet born. There is no precise, objectively specifiable moment at which a cluster of cells becomes an embryo and the embryo a fetus.
Baby: once the fetus is born it is called a baby.
This statement says from the start of last period, I used end of last period, so as most women have a five to eight day menstrual period, the same thing is being said.Your doctor will count the start of your pregnancy from the first day of your last menstrual period. That's about 2 weeks ahead of when conception happens.
Please remember that this is 14 weeks from conception not missed period. If given from missed period, it would be reading week 11. Also:Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.
Or 18 to 19 weeks from missed period. I would also ask that you check their sources to understand that this is not just a right for life organization spouting uneducated/unsubstantiated platitudes.Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.
by Richard Bonine, Jr.
Using the word baby imposes a different concept and context. A baby is an independently living existing human being, not just an unrecognizable collection of its mothers' cells.
by Richard Bonine, Jr.
Defenders of the morality of abortion tend to use the terms embryo and fetus. They are defending the morality of the right to remove a group of cells that is not viable, nor independent, or recognizable as a human being.
Opponents of abortion use the term baby to refer to the cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus all alike. Whereas cluster of cells, embryo, and fetus keep discussion in the medical domain, baby moves the discussion to the moral domain. The issue of the morality of abortion is settled once the words are chosen.
Nonetheless, a recent comparison of CDC data with mifepristone sales data¶¶¶¶¶ suggests that CDC's Abortion Surveillance System accurately describes the use of medical abortion relative to other abortion methods in the United States (62).
Something else that the CDC does, is to explain that the gestation data they are using is from the last “Missed menstrual cycle”.
*In weeks from the last menstrual period.
I am still waiting enlightenment.
by Hannah Nash
Also, you continued to make claims in multiple posts about how the CDC defines gestational age by:
So in those states the Doctor decides what the gestational age is. What basis do they use if not what is outlined in WebMD?Table 7
* Gestational age based on the clinician's estimate (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York City, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia)
So only one reporting state uses the last menstrual period -- but ask yourself do they use beginning of or end of period?Continuing from CDC Table 7; gestational age calculated from the last normal menstrual period (Rhode Island)
continuing Table 7 again; gestational age based on the clinician's estimate when the date of the last menstrual period unavailable (Arkansas, Georgia); gestational age calculated from the last normal menstrual period when the clinician's estimate unavailable (Kentucky, Maine, Montana, and Utah); or not reported (District of Columbia).
CDC report:
Each year, CDC sends suggested templates to the central health agencies for compilation of abortion data in aggregate. Aggregate abortion numbers, but no individual-level records, are requested for the following variables:
CDC report:
U.S. Census Bureau estimates of the resident female population of the United States, compiled by CDC, were used as the denominator for calculating abortion rates (23-32). Overall abortion rates were calculated from the population of women aged 15–44 years living in the areas that provided data. For adolescents aged <15 years, abortion rates were based on the number of adolescents aged 13–14 years; similarly, for women aged =40 years, abortion rates were based on the number of women aged 40–44 years. For the calculation of abortion ratios, live birth data were obtained from CDC natality files (33) and included births to women of all ages living in the reporting areas that provided abortion data.
by Hannah Nash The chemicals used in non-surgical abortions are still controlled substances, thus easily traceable throughout the medical community (including pharmacies that dispense said chemicals/pills).
TABLE 11. Reported abortions, by known method type and reporting area of occurrence — selected reporting areas,* United States, 2010
by Richard Bonine, Jr.
Your Strict Father mindset is blinding you from seeing other perspectives.
Hannah Nash
If the estimate isn't to your liking, or you think it contains glaring errors, I would encourage you to take it up with the medical professionals who author the paper every year (you can find their names and professional credentials at the top of the research you and I both referenced).
Richard Bonine, Jr
Apparently not. You've done a wonderful job of demonstrating the books' truth. That is all.
by Hannah Nash
I found their estimates to be perfectly within an acceptable range from a scientific standpoint. I'm fine with it (which has been my stance since my first post).
by Hannah Nash
I never switched tactics.
Do not accuse me of poor reading comprehension when I have been nothing but respectful and straightforward with you.