A clear misrepresentation of what evolutions is about. 
So, you’re debate is: If we assume that you’re right, why doesn’t everyone agree with you?
:rolleyes:
I think you got that backwards. The majority of people who got in trouble with the housing market were deeply uneducated in the areas of math and economics.
That’s interesting, thanks.
I don’t. And I won’t.
Yes it is rather silly and I agree that we should have gotten rid of it. To make it even more ridiculous, the majority of politicians are members of parties that want to abolish the monarchy, so we could have done it a long time ago.
The reason it hasn’t been done is that the monarchy is viewed as a harmless and quaint anachronism, like a living cultural heritage. I think we should get rid of it on principle, but I’ve never met a single person in my life that is passionate about the issue. Basically it hasn’t been done because peoples grandmothers would be upset (“Oh but the queen is such a nice lady, how could you!”.
Actually I could kind of blame you foreigners for it, since the most widely used argument against getting rid of it is that “it is good PR abroad”. I kid you not. Stop sending the king invitations.
On a weird note… A while back there was a huge tabloid “scandal” when it was revealed that the king had been sleeping around like crazy. Some people thought that might actually bring up the issue. I on the other hand reasoned that if we’re going to have a king for the sake of cultural history, he SHOULD be sleeping around and partying like crazy. Knocking up servant girls and behaving badly is what a king is supposed to do, historically.
No. I don’t see why you have to tell me what my argument is, it works much better if I tell you what it is and if you don’t think it seems to make sense you ask me to clarify. I’ll reciprocate, I promise.
My point here was that progressive in the US tends to mean “leftist” wheras here it is mostly used to describe something as “modern” and “forward thinking” and pretty unequivocally positive (ie: both the left and right claim they are progressive).
I think you summed this up nicely.
My characterization is 100% correct, and doesn’t depend on any particular definition of “progressive”.
Look. I am not arguing that I am right. I am fully aware that you are much smarter than me and much more knowledgable on this and probably most other issues. I am just trying to coax you away from what I percieve as an antagonistic approach. There’s no prestige in it, I’m only here to fight my ignorance and I am trying to help you help me do that.
I fully respect if you don’t want to do that, I can’t expect a stranger on the internet to put time and effort into it, but if you do I think it is better if you treat me as a well meaning but ignorant foreigner trying to learn, rather than an intellectual equal or opponent.
It’s not that we haven’t reached a “consensus” on the issues that the OP mentions while other nations have, it’s just that under our system of government the word does really carry the same meaning that it does in many other countries. For example, our federal government does not have the power to mandate or prohibit states from imposing the death penalty, but it is both authorized and required to protect individuals from suffering “cruel and unusual punishment,” and there is a consensus as to how the death penalty can and cannot be imposed within that context (i.e. there needs to be a separate sentencing hearing above and beyond the trial, can only execute mentally competent adults, etc.) Basically, at the federal level, achieving a consensus often means merely establishing parameters that prevent individual states from violating the constitutional rights of it’s citizens.
Also, in most cases, the federal government cannot proactively address the issues in the OP. For example, if and when it is finally resolved that members of the same sex have the same right to marry as hetero couples, it will be because a same sex couple was prohibited from marrying by their local jurisdiction, and sought legal remedy. Until then, no amount of public or political support for SSM can really change anything.
I don’t know what you mean by “object” in this context. I think the US citizens have the right to democratically decide how they want to organize and run their society. If they want to have a death penalty I think it’s unfortunate because I believe it has been proven to be sub-optimal for societies, but I don’t question their right to decide this.
I personally would vote against Sweden becoming the 51st state, but I would accept it if there was a majority for it. I voted against joining the EU, but I accept the outcome.
If the trend towards mixed-market economies, higher education, social liberalism and general progress of humankind continues, I think all of these policies will become universally accepted. To me it’s just a matter of time, but of course I think that the sooner the better, since it would mean less suffering and an increase in human welfare. But since I am a democrat (not Democrat) I don’t think this should be undemocratically forced on democratic nations.
How many people there are in a given administrative area doesn’t really influence how likely they are to be right on an issue, only what the outcome will be in a vote.* All ideas that have enhanced the wellbeing of humans and humankind has started out as being the idea of a minority, even the smallest possible minority some of the time.
- The vast majority of people in the world believe in supernatural beings, and they are of course wrong.
Let me explain why you’ve attracted fawning “America (or at least the parts I don’t like) suck!” posters and other posters who look upon you with emotions vaguely like disgust, but with less personal interest. [Yes, that’s an exaggeration for fun.]
You came in with several assumptions:
(1) That your preferences are obviously, objectively correct.
(2) That people in the U.S., by not universally adopting them, have somehow “failed to keep up.”
(3) That these are even issues.
You also wrote your OP in a rather blundering manner that basically looks like you’re sneering down your Euro-nose at us, while frankly not bothering to ask the basic questions about even your own position. In short, without judging you, you act like a rather unpleasantly judgmental person, who then retreated to But I was just asking a question!" once people call him on it. That need not be true, but it doesn’t exactly do you credit either way.
As above, you did not in any way come across as a “well-meaning foreigner”. You came across as an arrogant man sniffing at those Americans.
I will take one issue you questioned: The Death Penalty. This probably the least complicated issue.
Fundamentally, America has the death penalty in many places because we consider some crimes to be so serious and heinous that the only appropriate penalty is death.* In fact, I’ve seen polls which suggest that Europeans have about the same opinions on the matter that we do - and probably most peoples in the world do.
However, most peoples in the world are not democratic in the way Americans are. Most countries use the death penalty in ways which make us uneasy, and which we would not use it. In Europe, the political class (for all parties) has a very different background than you tend to see in America, and tend to hold somewhat different views even from their close consituencies.
There are widely different views on the matter. Some people want an entirely “healing and rehabilitation-oriented” justice system. (I have difficulties with this view as it has not proven effective here in the past). Others want a system of raw justice: matching crime to punishment within the limits of the state’s mercy. Many simply want criminals removed from society until they are judged no longer a threat, because they are most concerned with ending the threat of crime to the innocent.
None of these are terribly radical views. None of them are perfect, and all of them influence government at every level of society that has, in any way, power over or through the criminal justice system.
- I agree, though I’d prefer to apply the Death Penalty, not to common murder, but to betrayal of the public trust, mass murder and acts of murderous terrorism, treason, and other high crimes against the entire nation.
I see you believe you’ve “resolved” the issue. You have done nothing of the sort. Your political class may have its consensus, but it has not answered the basic question of “How ought we deal with crime?” If I were to stereotype a continent, Europeans vote for people who tell them what to do. Americans vote for people and tell them what to do. (Frequently. At length. Forever.)
I have a soft spot for the current crown princess after I read she struggled with an eating disorder. She seems very nice. And her husband is kinda hot in a Clark Kentish way.
But it make me furious if I were paying taxes to support them.
You are assuming that you are. You said so in this thread.
But let’s assume you are correct. Your question boils down to: why doesn’t every country reach the correct solution at exactly the same time. For example, gay rights were non-existant in Europe not that long ago. Why is that?
I think people are being very unfair to the OP.
What he is asking, basically, is “given that the USA and other first-world nations (Japan, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the EU countries, etc.) share so much in terms of economy, information, and culture, why can’t the US seem to resolve these major quandaries definitively as the other nations have”?
Some good answers have been given (the size and non-parliamentary government of the US). I’d also say that the consensus of the others is a bit illusory: same-sex marriage, for instance. Most of the EU does not allow it, or only allows it under a different name.
All of that said, I’m an American citizen born and raised in the US and I’m as baffled by the situation in the US as the OP. Concerns over the teaching of evolution should simply not arise in public education, and it’s astounding that it still happens with regularity. Whatever your personal stance on abortion, there are many ways to combat the problem without working to make the practice illegal. Whatever your stance on the death penalty, the same. You may think the death penalty is appropriate and just, but at the same time, there are far greater wastes of resources than not killing a few hundred people a year (endless appeals, for one).
Edit: I can see I’ve fallen into the same progressivist trap as the OP, so I’ll start thickening my hide now.
First, thank you for the very constructive feedback, it is much appreciated.
I do have the assumption that these particular preferences as you call them, are “correct” in away. If by “correct” I can be allowed to mean that they are proven to have a positive outcome on society as a whole. Proven both by research, but also by the fact that almost everyone who once held the opposing view has now come around. Almost every society that I know started out with the death penalty, repression against homosexuality, private healthcare and strong opposition against abortion. The more democratic and educated countries become, the more they change their views on these issues.
Some policies are simply more beneficial to society, but of course you have the right to have sub-optimal policies if you want to. My country has several as do all other nations, I most likely support policies that will turn out to be in this category. In these examples it just seems that the cases are so strong, that it is weird that a democratic and higly educated nation hasn’t gotten around to changing them, I want to explore why. Of course others may instead want to discuss the merits of the policies since they aren’t resolved in the US. But to me that is like discussing whether creationism is true or not. It’s not, and it’s boring to disuss it. I don’t learn anything new, the jury is not out anymore, the jury is back at its day job doing more productive things.
That’s unfortunate. Obviously both my social skills and my english is severely lacking. Your feedback helps me try and correct it though, so cheers. Of course there IS arrogance in the fact that I think that these issues are resolved, but that can’t really be helped. I can however try to find ways of expressing it that makes it come off as less arrogant.
Regarding the death penalty I think it is fairly easy. Do I believe some people deserve to die? Yes, I’d even kill some of them myself. Do I think a death penalty is beneficial to society. No.
You don’t have to solve the huge question of “how do we deal with crime” in one big go, but you can rule out some things like the death penalty and torture (although I admit there are scenarios…).
I assume for simmilar, if not identical reasons to the US. Some just got there faster than others. shrug
On a bit of an off tangent thought I think it is a tribal thing, but I am no expert. Societies, just like people, have to consciously act against their instincts in order to progress. People who don’t look like me or act like me will be instinctively percieved by me as dangerous. Blacks don’t look like what I am used to people looking like, and gays are perverts that probably want to rape me. Since they are dangerous I want to either kill or control them, or at the very least keep my distance. I just lucked out and got born with access to the safety and information I needed to consciously evolve away from that.
The simple answer to the OP’s questions is, “conservatives.” Other countries don’t have as large or as powerful a block of voters who want to legislate against those four items.
This is a generalization, but the American brand of conservatism has a lot of anger behind it. Each one of those four issues has people seething in anger. Death penalty proponents want vengeance. Abortion opponents want to stop what they view as murderers. Creationists want their religious beliefs to stop being marginalized by science. Opponents of gay rights want gays to be held as sinful and not accepted by society in general. And anger gets you to the voting booth more than dissatisfaction. If you have two people and one wants to lower the deficit and the other wants to save little babies from being murdered, who is more likely to vote?
I’d suggest we haven’t put these things to bed because we have a bunch of angry Christians who think they have a mandate from God Himself to enshrine their particular view of society into law.
Of course not all Christians are like this. Or even agree with those four, but when your country has 60% of its population believing in guardian angels, you’re going to have a large block of people who can only view reality through the lens of their religious beliefs.
Welcome.
That’s one hell of an assumption.
Err… that’s certainly incorrect.
Most of the world had no particularl position on abortion. Many if not most considered homsexuality rather pathetic, but quite often considered pederasty perfectly normal. (You wouldn’t marry a man, but you could screw a boy.) Most societies did apply the death penalty, but increasing democracy hasn’t neccessarily stopped that. More accurately, it’s elite politicians, not the common man, who tends to be agaisnt the DP. Public healthcare has existed in various forms for centuries among a huge variety of nations, although the specifics vary considerably from place to place even today.*
*It is not specifically public healthcare that many in the United States get up in arms about. It’s federal control of healthcare. The reasons are many.
I would submit that if you took a long and clear look, you might find that these issues aren’t simple, and are never clear. When someone believes a political issue is clear, it’s usually a damn good sign they either don’t want to listen to the other side, or are committed to such a narrow view that nothing gets through.
For example, I don’t agree with most liberal views, and when I do agree, I often agree for reasons they would hate. I also see that my opinions flow fundamentally what I value, and while I think my values are correct, I can understand why others don’t or even can’t agree.
Here’s an example: I would not apply the Death penalty if I were given the power. There are several reason for it. First, I do not trust myself to excercise the authority over life and death.
However, I disagree completely with those who try to claim that “Convicted muderer/pedophile/puppy-raper/all-around bad guy Slaughterface McKillbane doesn’t deserve death!” (Which is somethign they do claim, frequently.) This is patent nonsense. Of course he deserves death: it’s purest and most honest form of justice to inflict upon the guilty their own crime. Murderers do deserve death. Thieves deserves to have everything they stole taken back, and then some.
We choose not to do so because we have a standard of mercy. However, mercy should always be clear-eyed and honest with itself. If we do not do that true justice to a criminal, it is because we want to be merciful people. And if we do these because “it’s better for society”: then we just beg so many questions I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
Exactly. The OP seems to be saying “We’re doing things the right way. Why do you guys keep doing things the wrong way?”
An American conservative would deny that we’ve fallen behind other countries. He’d say we’re leading the way away from the wrong positions other countries have on issues like abortion, socialized medicine, gay rights, gun control, drug prohibition, and the death penalty. He’d say Sweden needs to catch up with the United States.
The OP (and myself) might disagree with this view. But it’s wrong to assume there’s a consensus on where society should be and we can measure how close every country is to this ideal.
I had asked which of the two choices you objected to.
I see several possibilities for your use of the term “resolved” in the OP. The issues could be considered “resolved” when the subject matter is no longer discussed and there for considered null and void as a topic of disagreement. It could mean that no one continues to object to the issues as they now stand. One side could simply give up. It could also mean that everyone is converted to one way of thinking. One side wins.
Asking that a issue be “resolved” is one thing, asking that an issue be “resolved” in your favor is another. If you believe that “U.S. citizens have the right to democratically decide how they want to organize and run their society”, then why do you object to how they have “resolved” the issue?