Europeon Left vs. American Left

[realibrad]

Nanny-state = over protective state that enact laws to protect its citizen even if said citizen did not ask for protection
Puritanical = strict laws based on a set of morals, often religious in nature.

Nanny state has nothing to do with morals. Nanny state enact laws to protect you even if you don't want it to. These laws are evidence based, not morality driven. Thus puritanical nanny state is not a possibility.

Your examples of puritanical nanny-statism have nothing puritanical.

First, where did you get your definition of Puritanical from? Puritanical is not a set of strict laws, as it can be used for non-law things. Puritans had strict laws, but when you use puritanical its an adjective to say strict.

Also, nanny-state has everything to do with morals. You seem to be under the impression that morals means something other than this "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." So the nanny-state is a state that is concerned with the behavior and beliefs in terms of what is acceptable.

Lets see some examples of how the word can be used.

"My parents are extremely puritanical and will not allow me to date."

"Dancing didn’t fit into the puritanical ideals of morality."

See how its being used?

Now, check out this link and how it describes puritanical.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/puritanical

If you describe someone as puritanical, you mean that they have very strict moral principles, and often try to make other people behave in a more moral way.

Now, if a state had very strong moral principles they would want to enact strict laws to force people to behave morally. A nanny-state is a state that believes people should be forced to not be able to do unacceptable things. The only way you can define what is unacceptable and or acceptable is to have a set of morals. Thus a nanny-state going off of what it thinks is moral aka acceptable or unacceptable will have laws adhering to its morals.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm not wrong. pmv is not wrong. The definitions are clear as day, yet nobody wants to agree with the dictionary which is strange, given this whole thing started when someone questioned if the use of a word was correct.

Nobody, not once has showed where I was wrong on this.

Prove you wrong? Your argument is akin to declaring, "god is real". You haven't proven anything, you haven't shown the laws to be based on morals nor religious reasons.

Do you even dictionary bro?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puritanical

 

[Starbuck1975]

Prove you wrong? Your argument is akin to declaring, "god is real". You haven't proven anything, you haven't shown the laws to be based on morals nor religious reasons.

Do you even dictionary bro?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puritanical

Is morality not a basis for and inseperable from any conversation about laws? If a state is moralistically rigid in imposing laws, Puritanical would be one way to describe what is commonly known as the nanny state.

The basis of individual liberty is sovereignty over self, the idea that my rights end where your nose begins. The notion of the nanny state is that it is immoral to give people certain choices, or sovereignty over self, and that the government knows what is best and should manipulate choice through laws and regulations. If said government is moralistically rigid or dogmatic in influencing choice, it would be Puritanical.

 

[Starbuck1975]

First, where did you get your definition of Puritanical from? Puritanical is not a set of strict laws, as it can be used for non-law things. Puritans had strict laws, but when you use puritanical its an adjective to say strict.

Also, nanny-state has everything to do with morals. You seem to be under the impression that morals means something other than this "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do." So the nanny-state is a state that is concerned with the behavior and beliefs in terms of what is acceptable.

Lets see some examples of how the word can be used.

"My parents are extremely puritanical and will not allow me to date."

"Dancing didn’t fit into the puritanical ideals of morality."

See how its being used?

Now, check out this link and how it describes puritanical.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/puritanical

If you describe someone as puritanical, you mean that they have very strict moral principles, and often try to make other people behave in a more moral way.

Now, if a state had very strong moral principles they would want to enact strict laws to force people to behave morally. A nanny-state is a state that believes people should be forced to not be able to do unacceptable things. The only way you can define what is unacceptable and or acceptable is to have a set of morals. Thus a nanny-state going off of what it thinks is moral aka acceptable or unacceptable will have laws adhering to its morals.

I get what you are saying, but you've chosen to lock horns with those who are never wrong.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Most of it is relative. I can't see the idea that Puritan nanny stateism is a left wing phenomenon in USoA. I don't see that in my neck of the woods, or when I go other places.

I'm in New England, and I'll say this...we're definitely more blunt and coarse in our interactions than other places I've been.

New England is somewhat of an exception, as every so often you guys tend to elect moderate Republican governors to keep things in balance, and you keep the nanny staters confined to Cambridge and a few affluent suburbs.

 

[realibrad]

Prove you wrong? Your argument is akin to declaring, "god is real". You haven't proven anything, you haven't shown the laws to be based on morals nor religious reasons.

Do you even dictionary bro?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/puritanical

No it's not. All that has to be done is to show how my definitions are wrong. Where you pulled the "good is real" thing from is amazing stupid. This is a disagreement over the meaning of a word and how that word can be used correctly.

The definitions have been posted, and the grammar is correct. An adjective modifies a noun. An adjective is not a noun.

 

[realibrad]

I get what you are saying, but you've chosen to lock horns with those who are never wrong.

Yeah well I'll disagree with anyone. This just seems silly as we are talking about the meaning of words which can, and, has been verified. They are trying to argue against the accepted meaning and or grammar.

 

[ivwshane]

No it's not. All that has to be done is to show how my definitions are wrong. Where you pulled the "good is real" thing from is amazing stupid. This is a disagreement over the meaning of a word and how that word can be used correctly.

The definitions have been posted, and the grammar is correct. An adjective modifies a noun. An adjective is not a noun.

We all agree on the definition you moron, what we disagree with is the application. How this shit is so hard for you to understand is beyond me.

 

[realibrad]

We all agree on the definition you moron, what we disagree with is the application. How this shit is so hard for you to understand is beyond me.

How can you disagree on the application.

Puritanical means practicing strict moral behavior. Nanny-state is a state that enforces strict laws that prohibit people from doing immoral things because people need to be protected from themselves. So a Puritanical nanny-state is a state that protects people from themselves while denoting that they have a strict view of their morals. How could the application be in question. The definition clearly establishes why it works.

So tell me, where is the discontinuity that you are perceiving?

 

[ivwshane]

Is morality not a basis for and inseperable from any conversation about laws? If a state is moralistically rigid in imposing laws, Puritanical would be one way to describe what is commonly known as the nanny state.

The basis of individual liberty is sovereignty over self, the idea that my rights end where your nose begins. The notion of the nanny state is that it is immoral to give people certain choices, or sovereignty over self, and that the government knows what is best and should manipulate choice through laws and regulations. If said government is moralistically rigid or dogmatic in influencing choice, it would be Puritanical.

Good laws are not based on morals and good governments don't rule by morals so I'm not sure where you are pulling this shit from. The purpose of laws and regulations that you complain about, come about precisely because peoples actions don't end at their noses.
Porn stars are required to wear condoms for the same reasons restaurants are required to be clean, to stop the spreading of diseases. A sick population isn't good for the general welfare of the nation.
We don't pay taxes for moral reasons, we pay them so the government can provide services that support the general welfare of this country.
Murder isn't illegal because it's wrong its illegal because it violates another person's rights. Its also why some liberals support assisted suicide and right to die laws, because people should be allowed to choose how and when they die.

To claim the left is a puritanical nanny state is so utterly ridiculous when we have a party whose platform wants to restrict abortion for nothing other than moralistic reasons, who wishes to create laws that restrict which bathroom people use, who wish to define who can marry, who fucking get upset because athletes refuse to stand for the national anthem, who wish to bring religion (only a certain religion) into schools, who wish to remove sex education from schools, who support the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, who complained about a so called war on Christmas, who want to ban Muslims, etc, etc, is fucking hilarious!

The real reason the right hates liberals and their so called nanny state is because they hate being called out on their bullshit and they hate being blocked from fucking over people. But fuck it, let's remove child labor laws, let's bring back pollution, lead paint, asbestos, company towns, let's remove banking regulations, let's bring back discrimination in the work place, let's bring back poll taxes and restrict women and black people from voting because god forbid fucking liberals get in the way of you piece of shit snowflakes being able to do whatever the fuck you want because freedom!

 

[realibrad]

Good laws are not based on morals and good governments don't rule by morals so I'm not sure where you are pulling this shit from. The purpose of laws and regulations that you complain about, come about precisely because peoples actions don't end at their noses.
Porn stars are required to wear condoms for the same reasons restaurants are required to be clean, to stop the spreading of diseases. A sick population isn't good for the general welfare of the nation.
We don't pay taxes for moral reasons, we pay them so the government can provide services that support the general welfare of this country.
Murder isn't illegal because it's wrong its illegal because it violates another person's rights. Its also why some liberals support assisted suicide and right to die laws, because people should be allowed to choose how and when they die.

To claim the left is a puritanical nanny state is so utterly ridiculous when we have a party whose platform wants to restrict abortion for nothing other than moralistic reasons, who wishes to create laws that restrict which bathroom people use, who wish to define who can marry, who fucking get upset because athletes refuse to stand for the national anthem, who wish to bring religion (only a certain religion) into schools, who wish to remove sex education from schools, who support the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, who complained about a so called war on Christmas, who want to ban Muslims, etc, etc, is fucking hilarious!

The real reason the right hates liberals and their so called nanny state is because they hate being called out on their bullshit and they hate being blocked from fucking over people. But fuck it, let's remove child labor laws, let's bring back pollution, lead paint, asbestos, company towns, let's remove banking regulations, let's bring back discrimination in the work place, let's bring back poll taxes and restrict women and black people from voting because god forbid fucking liberals get in the way of you piece of shit snowflakes being able to do whatever the fuck you want because freedom!

Your post seems to indicate you do not know what morals are. Can you define what you think the definition of morals is? Laws are passed often explicitly for moral reasons.

 

[pmv]

This is a silly thread, and I have to disagree with some who I probably agree with in general.

You are quibbling over the exact meaning of a word.

"Puritanism" can take either the narrow sense of strict ideas about sexual and other hedonistic behaviours ("the deep fear that someone, somewhere may be enjoying themselves") or the wider sense of a rigid adherence to an ideology.

In _both_ senses it exists all across the political spectrum.

But, probably, liberals are less prone to it than either the left or the right. Because it's in the nature of liberalism to want to be all fluffy and open-minded and have a broad-church. But they still are susceptible to it in its wider sense, because it's an unavoidable strand in Western, heck, human, culture. No philosophy can be all-encompassing of all ways of viewing the world. The only way to be free of all taint of puritanism is to have no morals at all.

Liberals are also occasionally prone to it in the narrow sense, e.g. Tipper Gore and her parental advisory labels.

Furthermore, who says it's a bad thing (in the wider sense of the word, i.e. ideological rigidity)? The trouble with liberals historically has been precisely the fact that they can be _too_ non-judgemental and ideologically lax, and too much of a broad-church, which has many times made them totally useless at actually getting anything done when it counts. Neither the left nor the right have had that problem.


And finally, of course laws are based on morals. Without a moral system you have no basis for deciding what should be allowed or disallowed. Different political persuasions have different ideas of morality (and also of practical things like how the economy works). Most of them are ultimately based on the faith that if they got their way for long enough everyone would come to agree that their morals were best, but in the meantime coercion is unavoidable for all of them.

Edit - actually I'm not so sure about that final sentence. The _left_ has always based its program on the (probably rather idealistic) idea that if it got its way everyone would eventually come to share its moral system, and so coercion would no longer be required. The right, with it's roots in religious ideas about the innate sinfulness and imperectability of human beings, I think tends to see coercion and the exercise of power as being a permanent feature of even their ideal system. And that applies to the libertarian right almost as much as to the religious right.

 

[ivwshane]

Your post seems to indicate you do not know what morals are. Can you define what you think the definition of morals is? Laws are passed often explicitly for moral reasons.

I'm sure laws are often passed for moral reasons, I never said otherwise. Appreciate yet another straw man from you. I did say that good laws are not based on morals though. Do you know why that would be true? Because morals are not black and white nor are they universal.

And no, all laws are not based on morals. Can you explain what the moral reasoning is for speed limits in rural areas where no residents or business resides? Can you explain what the moral reasoning is for electrical standards (not to be confused with electrical safety)? Can you explain the moral reasoning for taxes?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Good laws are not based on morals and good governments don't rule by morals so I'm not sure where you are pulling this shit from. The purpose of laws and regulations that you complain about, come about precisely because peoples actions don't end at their noses.
Porn stars are required to wear condoms for the same reasons restaurants are required to be clean, to stop the spreading of diseases. A sick population isn't good for the general welfare of the nation.
We don't pay taxes for moral reasons, we pay them so the government can provide services that support the general welfare of this country.
Murder isn't illegal because it's wrong its illegal because it violates another person's rights. Its also why some liberals support assisted suicide and right to die laws, because people should be allowed to choose how and when they die.

To claim the left is a puritanical nanny state is so utterly ridiculous when we have a party whose platform wants to restrict abortion for nothing other than moralistic reasons, who wishes to create laws that restrict which bathroom people use, who wish to define who can marry, who fucking get upset because athletes refuse to stand for the national anthem, who wish to bring religion (only a certain religion) into schools, who wish to remove sex education from schools, who support the right of businesses to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, who complained about a so called war on Christmas, who want to ban Muslims, etc, etc, is fucking hilarious!

The real reason the right hates liberals and their so called nanny state is because they hate being called out on their bullshit and they hate being blocked from fucking over people. But fuck it, let's remove child labor laws, let's bring back pollution, lead paint, asbestos, company towns, let's remove banking regulations, let's bring back discrimination in the work place, let's bring back poll taxes and restrict women and black people from voting because god forbid fucking liberals get in the way of you piece of shit snowflakes being able to do whatever the fuck you want because freedom!

It is wrong for you to assume that criticism of American liberalism is an endorsement of American conservatism. American conservatism is wrong about a great many things.

We derive laws from a common foundation of beliefs, which inherently align to the notion of morality. All of the examples you listed spring from a common moralistic determination that individuals have irrevocable human rights. Not too long ago in our past, societies and civilizations sacrificed humans to appease their gods. That seems absurd to us now, but why?

Also, if you want to get picky about vocabulary and the origin of words, the term snowflake has its origins in the movie "Fight Club" and is meant to describe the easily offended college students of the 2010s, hence the term "Generation Snowflake".

 

[pmv]

I'm sure laws are often passed for moral reasons, I never said otherwise. Appreciate yet another straw man from you. I did say that good laws are not based on morals though. Do you know why that would be true? Because morals are not black and white nor are they universal.

And no, all laws are not based on morals. Can you explain what the moral reasoning is for speed limits in rural areas where no residents or business resides? Can you explain what the moral reasoning is for electrical standards (not to be confused with electrical safety)? Can you explain the moral reasoning for taxes?

Oh come on! The moral reasoning for taxes is that it's judged that everyone has a moral duty to pay a fair share to sustain the society that all benefit from. Furthermore there is, at least for me, a moral judgement that private property is not absolute, that nothing comes from nothing and there ain't no such thing as a self-made-man, and that nobody truly owns wealth in an absolute sense distinct from the social context (certainly not land, anyway).

The moral reasoning for electrical standards is that a moral judgement is made that the benefit of having agreed common standards, in increasing efficiency, justifies the loss of freedom for any oddball who wants to use their own non-standard systems.

The moral reasoning for speed limits is that it's the moral thing to do to allow people the possibility of walking or cycling safely on those rural roads even if people generally don't choose to do so. Or that there is moral value in having consistent rules so that people don't get into the habit of driving at excessive speed, a habit that they might carry over into areas where people do reside.

And so on.

It's all based on morals, I don't see why you are arguing otherwise.

 

[realibrad]

I'm sure laws are often passed for moral reasons, I never said otherwise. Appreciate yet another straw man from you. I did say that good laws are not based on morals though. Do you know why that would be true? Because morals are not black and white nor are they universal.

And no, all laws are not based on morals. Can you explain what the moral reasoning is for speed limits in rural areas where no residents or business resides? Can you explain what the moral reasoning is for electrical standards (not to be confused with electrical safety)? Can you explain the moral reasoning for taxes?

Are you going to answer me first? If you do I will be glad to answer this, but I see no reason to answer your questions if you will not answer mine.

Define what morals are.

 

[ivwshane]

Oh come on! The moral reasoning for taxes is that it's judged that everyone has a moral duty to pay a fair share to sustain the society that all benefit from. Furthermore there is, at least for me, a moral judgement that private property is not absolute, that nothing comes from nothing and there ain't no such thing as a self-made-man, and that nobody truly owns wealth in an absolute sense distinct from the social context (certainly not land, anyway).

The moral reasoning for electrical standards is that a moral judgement is made that the benefit of having agreed common standards, in increasing efficiency, justifies the loss of freedom for any oddball who wants to use their own non-standard systems.

The moral reasoning for speed limits is that it's the moral thing to do to allow people the possibility of walking or cycling safely on those rural roads even if people generally don't choose to do so. Or that there is moral value in having consistent rules so that people don't get into the habit of driving at excessive speed, a habit that they might carry over into areas where people do reside.

And so on.

It's all based on morals, I don't see why you are arguing otherwise.

There are people and a political party who feel paying taxes is wrong and amounts to government theft. One party just passed a law lowering peoples taxes, do they now have less morals than before?

Your comment regarding electrical standards is a joke right?

Did you purposely change or ignore the wording of my question? I specifically used an example of a rural area in which nobody lives for a reason, there would be no pedestrians nor would their be bike riders.

Are you going to answer me first? If you do I will be glad to answer this, but I see no reason to answer your questions if you will not answer mine.

Define what morals are.

I'll refer to the dictionary.

Definition of moral
1a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical

• moral judgments

b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior

• a moral poem

c : conforming to a standard of right behavior

• took a moralposition on the issue though it cost him the nomination

d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment

• a moral obligation

e : capable of right and wrong action

• a moral agent

2: probable though not proved : virtual

• a moral certainty

3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect

• a moral victory

• moral support

 

[realibrad]

There are people and a political party who feel paying taxes is wrong and amounts to government theft. One party just passed a law lowering peoples taxes, do they now have less morals than before?

Your comment regarding electrical standards is a joke right?

Did you purposely change or ignore the wording of my question? I specifically used an example of a rural area in which nobody lives for a reason, there would be no pedestrians nor would their be bike riders.



I'll refer to the dictionary.

So, do you think laws against public nudity are for anything other than morals? How about censoring words on broadcast TV? What is the foundation of those laws if not morality?

 

[ivwshane]

So, do you think laws against public nudity are for anything other than morals? How about censoring words on broadcast TV? What is the foundation of those laws if not morality?

Simple question; are you fucking stupid?


I'll repeat myself for the third time. Sure there are laws based on morality but good laws are not.

Both of the above law are probably not good laws and I'm sure the data might show countries with less restrictions on either one would have lower percentages of sexual assault or lesser inequality between men and women and if the data showed the opposite then that might be enough justification for such laws.

 

[pmv]

Simple question; are you fucking stupid?


I'll repeat myself for the third time. Sure there are laws based on morality but good laws are not.

Nah, all laws are based on morality. If you exclude morality, what's the point of having laws at all?

(OK, some laws are not based on morality but on the naked self-interest of those making the laws - but those are bad laws, generally)

I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

 

[pmv]

There are people and a political party who feel paying taxes is wrong and amounts to government theft. One party just passed a law lowering peoples taxes, do they now have less morals than before?

Your comment regarding electrical standards is a joke right?

Did you purposely change or ignore the wording of my question? I specifically used an example of a rural area in which nobody lives for a reason, there would be no pedestrians nor would their be bike riders.



I'll refer to the dictionary.

What on earth are you talking about? Your posts are making less-and-less sense.

Regarding speed limits - I already answered that point in the previous post. Regarding electrical standards - you seem very very confused. Do you actually have any comprehension of what morality is?

Regarding the taxes issue - that political party have different morals to me*. I disagree with their morals, hence we are on different sides. It's not complicated.

* I'm being charitable in assuming their stance is based on any moral system at all, rather than naked self-interest, but that's really not that important in any case.

 

[pmv]

Simple question; are you fucking stupid?


I'll repeat myself for the third time. Sure there are laws based on morality but good laws are not.

Nah, you have that backwards. Good laws are based on morality, bad laws are not, being either about naked cynical self-interest or being completely random (perhaps because they are the products of a chaotic system or a completely deranged dictator).

 

[Starbuck1975]

So, do you think laws against public nudity are for anything other than morals? How about censoring words on broadcast TV? What is the foundation of those laws if not morality?

As a child of the 80s, I vividly remember the moralistic crusade against rock music led by Tipper Gore.

 

[ivwshane]

Nah, you have that backwards. Good laws are based on morality, bad laws are not, being either about naked cynical self-interest or being completely random (perhaps because they are the products of a chaotic system or a completely deranged dictator).

And I'm sure all laws you don't agree with are not moral and were passed in their creators self interest? Right? Because you are the arbitrator of what's good, right? For example a speed limit of 45mph is morally superior to that of 35mph, right? Or is this an example of a law created by a chaotic system?

 

[realibrad]

Simple question; are you fucking stupid?


I'll repeat myself for the third time. Sure there are laws based on morality but good laws are not.

Both of the above law are probably not good laws and I'm sure the data might show countries with less restrictions on either one would have lower percentages of sexual assault or lesser inequality between men and women and if the data showed the opposite then that might be enough justification for such laws.

This whole thing, start to finish, has been about puritanical nanny-statism. A nanny-state is a state that passes laws to prevent people from choosing to do things that might harm themselves. Further, if those laws are driven by a strong set of moral beliefs such as nudity is bad, smoking is bad, cursing is bad then you could accurately describe it as puritanical nanny-statism.

Puritanical nanny-statism has nothing to do with how effective it is. It has have to do with morality inherently. What is it that you are disagreeing with here?