Ariana Grande

[TheCatt]

It's really hard to quantify, but I am more in line with Leisher. We are losing something. Lincoln was called "Honest Abe". Washington had the story of the cherry tree. And while that story itself was made up, the man's virtue was real (which spawned the story). Today what we get is, "well everyone lies about sex".

Familiarity breeds contempt.

[Malcolm]

It's really hard to quantify, but I am more in line with Leisher. We are losing something. Lincoln was called "Honest Abe". Washington had the story of the cherry tree. And while that story itself was made up, the man's virtue was real (which spawned the story). Today what we get is, "well everyone lies about sex".

Familiarity breeds contempt.

I'll kind of echo that with, "You should never meet your heroes." I bet Adams was extremely pissed Washington got overall command instead of him. You'd find no end of contemporaries that thought Lincoln was dick of the first order.

You know there's some old Indian guy in a bar somewhere going, "I knew Gandhi. He was a prick."

- Robin Williams

[TPRJones]

Lincoln was called "Honest Abe". Washington had the story of the cherry tree.

Sure.

But Honest Abe took many actions in his Presidency that completely violated the Constitution and was essentially a dictator for a span of time. He did it for what he thought was a worthy cause - he was ultimately a good man - but the ends don't justify the means. Admiring Lincoln as a President is on par with admiring Tom Brady as a quarterback; they both won by cheating. Admittedly preserving the union is a loftier goal than winning a superbowl, but the principle is the same.

There's some evidence that hints that George may have cheated on Martha quite a few times, and even fathered some illegitimate children. That evidence is slim and could certainly be completely untrue. But still it's possible he was no saint either.

Today what we get is, "well everyone lies about sex".

That's the same thing that's been true since forever. Have you ever looked at the evidence on how often Presidents have been screwing around? Clinton was not the first. Neither was Kennedy. Cleveland had an illegitimate kid. Harding had a long-standing affair while in office. For nearly as long as there's been a White House there's been Presidents lying about sex.

The difference isn't that people are acting worse than before. The difference is that the information about what people are doing is more readily available. Nothing is new under the sun, but the sun now shines more readily into the dark corners that used to be hidden.

[Vince]

The difference isn't that people are acting worse than before. The difference is that the information about what people are doing is more readily available. Nothing is new under the sun, but the sun now shines more readily into the dark corners that used to be hidden.

But yes, the people are acting worse and you attitude about Washington is exactly what I am talking about. You even stated that the evidence of his alleged affairs was thin, but you threw it out there anyway to diminish him. Because we can no longer abide living in the shadows of giants. Because we have become very small, and we're reminded of that when we look up and see them.

There was a reason that the amendment restricting the President to two terms wasn't needed for over 100 years in this country. It's because politicians had enough respect for the memory of Washington than none even attempted a third term (until Teddy Roosevelt, the first prog President). Politicians would say to each other, "Do you think you're better than Washington?" when someone spoke of a third term. It was just bad form. I realize they were all human, but they were great men in spite of that. We can longer allow greatness to stand. We can no longer strive for something better than we are. God help you if you actually show some evidence of it. The crowd will turn you over to Pilot.

[TPRJones]

You even stated that the evidence of his alleged affairs was thin, but you threw it out there anyway to diminish him.

No, I throw it out there as evidence that perhaps he wasn't as pure as the driven snow. Not to diminish him but to point out that your blind faith in the purity of the heroes of the past is probably ill-founded.

You admittedly did make that hard by picking a particularly good one. It's just as possible that he was a saint. And if he was so much the better, I have no need to believe the worst of him. But even then we've now identified one good person from history; I can find you one good person today and we'll still be back to people being the same as they ever were.

Because we can no longer abide living in the shadows of giants.

How is my pointing out the sins of historical figures any more or less worse than your pointing out the sins of modern figures? Just because they're dead? When Clinton dies will you suddenly no longer think of him as a philanderer?



Edited By TPRJones on 1436496461

[Malcolm]

We can longer allow greatness to stand.

Even if the greatness was artificial?

[Leisher]

I saw your walls of text TPR and I'm too tired to properly respond at the moment, and I'm not really sure what's aimed at me, and what's not. However, it doesn't seem like I'm making my point clear or if you're not getting it or perhaps I'm reading your responses wrong. I don't know.

For example:

According to all the statistics I linked you to, no, this is fact. If you measure the quality of civilization in terms of how it limits the prevalence of casual violence on the populous (and subtopics like racism, child abuse, spousal abuse, rape, etc) then this is demonstrably the best things have ever been. And I think not getting randomly killed or violently beaten is a reasonable indicator to use, in the sense that any civilization where the inverse is true is not particularly civilized.

When compared to my statement, you're very much incorrect. It's not a fact. Why? Because nothing from my statement suggested the measurements that you listed. That's your list, not mine. And what are you comparing it to? I'm doing a stock exchange thing with other countries, you're talking about history. I think we're having two different debates, and thus, my paragraph above.

So I'll just say I'm not idealizing anyone from the past or the past. I'm simply saying that if our country was a stock, we'd currently be on a downward trend.

Stats to back my point up.

We're still one of the best countries on the planet, but we definitely have some improvements to make.

[Malcolm]

I'm simply saying that if our country was a stock, we'd currently be on a downward trend.

In terms of economic competence, I'd agree.

[Vince]

How is my pointing out the sins of historical figures any more or less worse than your pointing out the sins of modern figures? Just because they're dead? When Clinton dies will you suddenly no longer think of him as a philanderer?

I would say the difference is that focusing on the faults of heroes past is done in an effort to diminish their virtues. Most of the "leaders" today have no readily apparent virtues. And when we have someone that displays virtue, we try to tear them down. Clintons most apparent attribute is his being a philanderer with no equally virtuous traits.

I will offer up the exception of Taylor Swift. Don't like her music and I think she's pretty far to the left, but she seems to be a really charitable person. She has an amount of modesty that she's even sometimes slammed for. But for the most part, she hasn't been dismantled in the press. And it's rare that today's culture allows virtue to stand unchallenged.



Edited By Vince on 1436539680

[Malcolm]

Clintons most apparent attribute is his being a philanderer with no equally virtuous traits.

1) What people do in their marriages/relationships isn't my concern unless the law is broken. Adultery is not illegal.
2) No virtuous traits? What makes one virtuous? If I'm charitable with my guns to rebels in various third-world countries and give them price breaks, am I not being virtuous to them in spite of the murder they commit?

[Alhazad]

If I'm charitable with my guns to rebels in various third-world countries and give them price breaks, am I not being virtuous to them in spite of the murder they commit?

No, you're being charitable to them.

[TPRJones]

When compared to my statement, you're very much incorrect. It's not a fact. Why? Because nothing from my statement suggested the measurements that you listed.

I guess what I'm saying is the things you are focusing on are entirely misguided as a measurement of how we are doing as a civilization when there are other more important factors still in play.

This conversation started when it was stated that we are on a downward trend and things are falling apart, that we have better technology now but in the past people were better off because everything was more idyllic. There seems to be a tendency for some people to think of the past as some wonderful place where everyone was excellent to each other and this seemed to be one of those conversations. So I think it's reasonable to compare now to the past and point out that things are better now than they have ever been in ways that are clearly measurable and demonstrable.

Is that not in fact what was being stated?

I'm simply saying that if our country was a stock, we'd currently be on a downward trend ... We're still one of the best countries on the planet, but we definitely have some improvements to make.

Ah, well if the matter is that some countries have been improving at a faster rate than we have in the last few decades, then yes I would agree with you. The rest of the world still had - and still has - a lot of work to do to become a better place than it was. But I do not agree that we are getting worse ourselves, though. The rising tide of civilization is still lifting all boats, regardless of how fast they are rising in relation to each other.

Clintons most apparent attribute is his being a philanderer with no equally virtuous traits.

Much as I disliked him - and hated his politics - I'd have to disagree. He did a lot of good while in office. But the point wasn't to say he was a great man, just point out that our flaws don't disappear from history after we're dead.

The fact that we're talking about politicians makes it harder. There are - and have never been - very many good politicians. It seems that only after years of being in the history books can you find politicians who's sins have been washed away enough for them to be held up as saintly men, and only if you don't dig too deep.



Edited By TPRJones on 1436628165

[Malcolm]

If I'm charitable with my guns to rebels in various third-world countries and give them price breaks, am I not being virtuous to them in spite of the murder they commit?

No, you're being charitable to them.

Apparently, charity is a virtue and it's always good.

[Vince]

Much as I disliked him - and hated his politics - I'd have to disagree. He did a lot of good while in office. But the point wasn't to say he was a great man, just point out that our flaws don't disappear from history after we're dead.

I didn't say that good things didn't happen while he was in office, I said it was hard to find a virtuous trait which he posses.

And for me, the problem isn't that the society and culture we're in right now is crap. It isn't. As you've pointed out, a lot of things are better than ever. My problem is that we don't have heroes of virtue any more. We don't hold people up and strive to be more like them. In the long run it may not matter, but I can't but think a culture of expecting poor behavior because "everyone does it" will take it's toll within a couple of generations.

[Malcolm]

We don't hold people up and strive to be more like them.

Good. I'm not those other people. I'm me.

In the long run it may not matter, but I can't but think a culture of expecting poor behavior because "everyone does it" will take it's toll within a couple of generations.

Don't throw people up on pedestals. Everyone is mortal and fallible. I'll refer to Penn and Teller's Bullshit, again. Season 3, ep 5, the one about Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.

[GORDON]

She is not a horrible person, she just really, REALLY hates childhood obesity.

http://thefederalist.com/2015....are-you

[Alhazad]

Don't throw people up on pedestals. Everyone is mortal and fallible. I'll refer to Penn and Teller's Bullshit, again. Season 3, ep 5, the one about Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.

A particularly good example; even Penn and Teller demonstrate fallibility in it by including their unfunny Candid Camera dog shit even though it adds nothing to the argument.

[Malcolm]

Don't throw people up on pedestals. Everyone is mortal and fallible. I'll refer to Penn and Teller's Bullshit, again. Season 3, ep 5, the one about Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.

A particularly good example; even Penn and Teller demonstrate fallibility in it by including their unfunny Candid Camera dog shit even though it adds nothing to the argument.

They admitted they completely fucked the secondhand smoking episode.

[Malcolm]

Owner pressing charges. She's also banned for life.

[Vince]

Don't throw people up on pedestals. Everyone is mortal and fallible. I'll refer to Penn and Teller's Bullshit, again. Season 3, ep 5, the one about Mother Teresa, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.

A particularly good example; even Penn and Teller demonstrate fallibility in it by including their unfunny Candid Camera dog shit even though it adds nothing to the argument.

I think it's human nature to have people that are admired. We can continue on the current course and tear down decent people and continue to idolize the Kardashians and Kanye and Miley, or we can shoot higher. Up to us.