United States of America Still a Nation of Conservatives

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

You really think it's that extreme here?

It's actually a lot less extreme than you think~ The truth is that most countries are either barbaric or decadent: Completely convinced that they're absolutely right and very defensive about it, or rather apathetic about everything and just wanting to live life as it is. It is in this regard that the United States is no better - and certainly no worse - than nations such as China (which has a strange cultural identity, considering the Communist takeover and the Cultural Revolution, making the nation a very messy mosaic culturally) or North Korea. It sounds extreme because it sounds a lot more different than the values of equality and tolerance that the United States teaches, but, in practice, it isn't really extreme at all. Far too many nations on this planet are like that; it is in this regard that the United States isn't particularly special or unique. ^_^

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It's good news friend. People either want to hear about their country winning, or how much despair there is.

That itself is not unusual at all~ Admittedly, though, some nations don't really care all that much. Some nations are just so perpetually well off (I'm thinking of Atlantic Europe here or Scandinavian nations) - or, on the flip so, so perpetually screwed over (Middle East jumps out at me here) - that a lot of things that happen to their country or outside their country don't really concern them all that much. This state is called "decadence", and it's the polar opposite of barbarism - which, I must stress again, does not mean the nation is full of uncultured cavemen, and is not actually "bad" by itself. But what you're saying is not really an unusual phenomenon at all, but neither is it totally universal.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

America is unable to respect the beliefs of others?

You sound rather surprised about it; honestly, it's not something to be very surprised about. It's also a lot less extreme than you might think and than it might sound. This is going to take some time to explain. <_<

Historically speaking, very few nations into their "adolescence" have been very accepting of other beliefs. European nations went to war in the Middle East in the crusades in the name of religion, the Inquisition sentenced so many to death on the crime of heresy, and the Vatican tried to have Martin Luther silenced - and killed - when he spoke out against them. Intolerance is not, by any stretch, an uncommon phenomenon in geopolitics, but something hardcoded into every culture in a way not unlike DNA. This is especially prevalent with young nations, nations that show more nationalism (as well as the inevitable, inseparable cousin of nationalism, xenophobia) because they feel like they care (thankfully, the United States has yet to go in this specific direction yet), and the United States is most certainly a young nation, with only two hundred and thirty-three years of history since the signing of the Declaration of Independence...and two hundred and thirty-three years is certainly not a long time by any standard. XD

As for whether or not the United States is "unable to respect the beliefs of others"? I wouldn't go so universal. I'd phrase it more along the lines of "the majority of the American populace is conservative by most standards, and have a hard time respecting the differences in others". Not just beliefs. In some parts of the United States, a belief in God (or, alternatively, some sort of divine deity) is a requirement to hold any public office, while atheists are being discriminated against. American polls show that people are still uncomfortable with the fact that the idea that an Asian or a Muslim would be put into a position of leadership of a company or in office.

Don't get me wrong. The United States is one of the few countries that I can call multi-racial; through the virtue of immigration (which is another topic altogether, but we'll get there in time), it has people from a great many ethnic groups living together, and that's one pretty good accomplishment, by international standards. Don't expect America to be a paragon of tolerance and acceptance, however, not when the nation only allowed women to vote on a national level eight-nine years ago, and when the nation only began to repeal segregation laws about fifty years ago. It's not a condescending look at the United States as much as it is objective political science: Nations, mentalities, and cultures simply do not change that fast under stable conditions. Fifth years or ninety years, those are not long periods of time by any standard. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Ysionris

It's actually a lot less extreme than you think~ The truth is that most countries are either barbaric or decadent: Completely convinced that they're absolutely right and very defensive about it, or rather apathetic about everything and just wanting to live life as it is. It is in this regard that the United States is no better - and certainly no worse - than nations such as China (which has a strange cultural identity, considering the Communist takeover and the Cultural Revolution, making the nation a very messy mosaic culturally) or North Korea. It sounds extreme because it sounds a lot more different than the values of equality and tolerance that the United States teaches, but, in practice, it isn't really extreme at all. Far too many nations on this planet are like that; it is in this regard that the United States isn't particularly special or unique. ^_^

So you are saying most nations are rooted in something?

That itself is not unusual at all~ Admittedly, though, some nations don't really care all that much. Some nations are just so perpetually well off (I'm thinking of Atlantic Europe here or Scandinavian nations) - or, on the flip so, so perpetually screwed over (Middle East jumps out at me here) - that a lot of things that happen to their country or outside their country don't really concern them all that much. This state is called "decadence", and it's the polar opposite of barbarism - which, I must stress again, does not mean the nation is full of uncultured cavemen, and is not actually "bad" by itself. But what you're saying is not really an unusual phenomenon at all, but neither is it totally universal.

That's what humanity seems to desire out of the media.

You sound rather surprised about it; honestly, it's not something to be very surprised about. It's also a lot less extreme than you might think and than it might sound. This is going to take some time to explain. <_<

Historically speaking, very few nations into their "adolescence" have been very accepting of other beliefs. European nations went to war in the Middle East in the crusades in the name of religion, the Inquisition sentenced so many to death on the crime of heresy, and the Vatican tried to have Martin Luther silenced - and killed - when he spoke out against them. Intolerance is not, by any stretch, an uncommon phenomenon in geopolitics, but something hardcoded into every culture in a way not unlike DNA. This is especially prevalent with young nations, nations that show more nationalism (as well as the inevitable, inseparable cousin of nationalism, xenophobia) because they feel like they care (thankfully, the United States has yet to go in this specific direction yet), and the United States is most certainly a young nation, with only two hundred and thirty-three years of history since the signing of the Declaration of Independence...and two hundred and thirty-three years is certainly not a long time by any standard. XD

As for whether or not the United States is "unable to respect the beliefs of others"? I wouldn't go so universal. I'd phrase it more along the lines of "the majority of the American populace is conservative by most standards, and have a hard time respecting the differences in others". Not just beliefs. In some parts of the United States, a belief in God (or, alternatively, some sort of divine deity) is a requirement to hold any public office, while atheists are being discriminated against. American polls show that people are still uncomfortable with the fact that the idea that an Asian or a Muslim would be put into a position of leadership of a company or in office.

Don't get me wrong. The United States is one of the few countries that I can call multi-racial; through the virtue of immigration (which is another topic altogether, but we'll get there in time), it has people from a great many ethnic groups living together, and that's one pretty good accomplishment, by international standards. Don't expect America to be a paragon of tolerance and acceptance, however, not when the nation only allowed women to vote on a national level eight-nine years ago, and when the nation only began to repeal segregation laws about fifty years ago. It's not a condescending look at the United States as much as it is objective political science: Nations, mentalities, and cultures simply do not change that fast under stable conditions. Fifth years or ninety years, those are not long periods of time by any standard. ^_^;

Let me point out that being tolerant isn't allowing other nations to manifest their ideologies. For example, one can be tolerant of Palestine's view on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but not agree with it or support it. For example, I of course am tolerant (hell tolerant implies a bad meaning, but you know what I mean.) of people with highly religious view points, I don't have to agree with them on those points though do I? It's when they attempt to pass some sort of religious legislation or something that i have the problem with. Do you understand the analogy?

I don't see how there is a lack of 'tolerance' among the majority.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I don't see how there is a lack of 'tolerance' among the majority.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sa...age_in_USA.svg

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sa...age_in_USA.svg

Congratulations, you have one issue out of thousands.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

So you are saying most nations are rooted in something?

Indeed. Nations and their cultures don't spring out of nowhere. They had to have come from some place. =3

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Let me point out that being tolerant isn't allowing other nations to manifest their ideologies. For example, one can be tolerant of Palestine's view on the Israeli Palestinian conflict, but not agree with it or support it. For example, I of course am tolerant (hell tolerant implies a bad meaning, but you know what I mean.) of people with highly religious view points, I don't have to agree with them on those points though do I? It's when they attempt to pass some sort of religious legislation or something that i have the problem with. Do you understand the analogy?

Absolutely. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Unfortunately, this is what's happening right now: Legislation against same-sex marriage amongst a conservative nation. Let's be honest: How does the allowance of same-sex marriage affect other people's lives? I understand if people were opposed to, say, a healthcare plan or an economic embargo - this affects the pocketbooks of citizens on a national level. But how does same-sex marriage affect people who don't support it? It's not as if the government is forcing people into same-sex marriage. One has the choice to do it, but you can choose not to. Why the opposition? Because one believes it's an eyesore to see same-sex couples holding hands and kissing? Or because it's a defilement of what Christianity sees as a natural order? (And there are theories that Christianity isn't opposed to homosexuality, but I'm not clear on this, so I won't go there in-depth.)

I don't see a people as culturally-tolerant if they're going to pass laws that are religiously-motivated. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Congratulations, you have one issue out of thousands.

Congratulations, you have just effectively attempted to marginalize the greatest civil rights issue of contemporary American society.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Congratulations, you have just effectively attempted to marginalize the greatest civil rights issue of contemporary American society.

It's one issue, and you are acting as if it compromises the nation as a whole. Hardly.

It's like saying Britain is intolerant because it isn't tolerant of gun ownership.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It's one issue, and you are acting as if it compromises the nation as a whole. Hardly.

It's the biggest civil rights issue in the contemporary United States. Segregation compromised the nation as a whole during the Cold War (among other things), and I'm personally disinclined to let this one do the same.

It's like saying Britain is intolerant because it isn't tolerant of gun ownership.

Gun ownership is not a civil rights issue.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It's like saying Britain is intolerant because it isn't tolerant of gun ownership.

You could have thought of a better example here. The right to own a dangerous weapon is less a question of tolerance and more of prudence and safety. Wether or not two consenting individuals who happen to have the same genitals may or may not get legally married doesn't really equate to ownership of killing devices.

I do understand that you make the point of this being a single issue however. Yet I consider it a fact that Americans in general appear to be quite intolerant regarding it. And this is not the only issue of it's kind, not in the least.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

It's the biggest civil rights issue in the contemporary United States. Segregation compromised the nation as a whole during the Cold War (among other things), and I'm personally disinclined to let this one do the same.

Again, it's one issue and doesn't compromise the whole of the nation. How exactly does this compromise AMERICA?

Gun ownership is not a civil rights issue.

That is irrelevant, this is about tolerance.

Originally Posted by Qwelk

You could have thought of a better example here. The right to own a dangerous weapon is less a question of tolerance and more of prudence and safety. Wether or not two consenting individuals who happen to have the same genitals may or may not get legally married doesn't really equate to ownership of killing devices.

I do understand that you make the point of this being a single issue however. Yet I consider it a fact that Americans in general appear to be quite intolerant regarding it. And this is not the only issue of it's kind, not in the least.

We don't tolerate crime, which is another way to say, we don't allow crime. Britain doesn't tolerate ownership of guns, hence no one is allowed to own guns. Many states in America don't tolerate Gay Marriage, hence Gay Marriage is not allowed in those states. I feel it was a legitimate analogy.

In general Americans seem less tolerant because the majority are Bible thumpers. My whole point is it doesn't compromise the tolerance of the entire country, or even the majority as it's only ONE ISSUE.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Again, it's one issue and doesn't compromise the whole of the nation. How exactly does this compromise AMERICA?

No, it doesn't compromise the whole nation, but it most certainly affects its social values. We'll get there a bit further down this post.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

We don't tolerate crime, which is another way to say, we don't allow crime. Britain doesn't tolerate ownership of guns, hence no one is allowed to own guns. Many states in America don't tolerate Gay Marriage, hence Gay Marriage is not allowed in those states. I feel it was a legitimate analogy.

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Gun ownership is not a civil rights issue.

Originally Posted by Qwelk

You could have thought of a better example here. The right to own a dangerous weapon is less a question of tolerance and more of prudence and safety. Wether or not two consenting individuals who happen to have the same genitals may or may not get legally married doesn't really equate to ownership of killing devices.

Sorry, but I agree with DrZaius and Qwelk; that analogy really doesn't hold. >_<

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

In general Americans seem less tolerant because the majority are Bible thumpers.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

As for whether or not the United States is "unable to respect the beliefs of others"? I wouldn't go so universal. I'd phrase it more along the lines of "the majority of the American populace is conservative by most standards, and have a hard time respecting the differences in others".

We find common ground here. ^_^

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

My whole point is it doesn't compromise the tolerance of the entire country, or even the majority as it's only ONE ISSUE.

Originally Posted by Qwelk

I do understand that you make the point of this being a single issue however. Yet I consider it a fact that Americans in general appear to be quite intolerant regarding it. And this is not the only issue of it's kind, not in the least.

Would you agree that 9/11 doesn't compromise U.S. national security? After all, it's only "one issue".

The problem here is that although it's one issue, it's a big one. It's not just an isolated event, but the mentality of the majority of its people. You said it yourself; the majority of Americans are Bible-thumpers who believe in the Big Book word-for-word. Thus, the mentality affects many, many events that are based on them. As Qwelk mentioned, intolerance towards same-sex marriage is not by any means the only thing that the United States has been conservative about. Yes, the election results this year is a single isolated event, but that's just the surface problem. The real problem is at the core of the country, the mentality in which the majority of the American population runs, and as long as that problem isn't solved, the results of this year's elections are hardly going to be an isolated event that happens once every blue moon. XD

Will it compromise a nation per se? As in, national geopolitical interests? Chances are it won't; America is a young, passionate country that forgets things very easily. Twenty years from now, our children will wonder why we made such a big fuss about the War on Terrorism. And countries don't dismantle themselves very easily over such issues. Will it compromise national values and social standards, however? Well, I think the question answers itself. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Again, it's one issue and doesn't compromise the whole of the nation. How exactly does this compromise AMERICA?

Not affording a minority civil rights due? Yeah, that compromises an entire nation's moral high ground.

That is irrelevant, this is about tolerance.

And being tolerant of gun ownership is incomparable to being tolerant of homosexuals. Only one is a civil rights issue.

In general Americans seem less tolerant because the majority are Bible thumpers. My whole point is it doesn't compromise the tolerance of the entire country, or even the majority as it's only ONE ISSUE.

Slavery doesn't compromise an entire nation because it's one issue.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

No, it doesn't compromise the whole nation, but it most certainly affects its social values. We'll get there a bit further down this post.

That's all I am saying is that it doesn't compromise the WHOLE of the nation.

Sorry, but I agree with DrZaius and Qwelk; that analogy really doesn't hold. >_<

Why? Both are issues of tolerance, I brought the issue up, and I never made it about civil rights, it doesn't have to be a civil right issue.

Would you agree that 9/11 doesn't compromise U.S. national security? After all, it's only "one issue".

And it didn't. That's like claiming 9/11 made the entire country defenseless, which is untrue. It's the same as saying the issue of Gay Marriage makes the entire country intolerant, which is simply untrue.

The problem here is that although it's one issue, it's a big one. It's not just an isolated event, but the mentality of the majority of its people. You said it yourself; the majority of Americans are Bible-thumpers who believe in the Big Book word-for-word. Thus, the mentality affects many, many events that are based on them. As Qwelk mentioned, intolerance towards same-sex marriage is not by any means the only thing that the United States has been conservative about. Yes, the election results this year is a single isolated event, but that's just the surface problem. The real problem is at the core of the country, the mentality in which the majority of the American population runs, and as long as that problem isn't solved, the results of this year's elections are hardly going to be an isolated event that happens once every blue moon. XD

As this isn't a problem with the whole of the country, why is it relevant and why should it be allowed to impact the minority?

Originally Posted by DrZaius1

Not affording a minority civil rights due? Yeah, that compromises an entire nation's moral high ground.

And by extension, your moral high ground, as you are an American, are you not?

And being tolerant of gun ownership is incomparable to being tolerant of homosexuals. Only one is a civil rights issue.

No one but you is making this over civil rights, I stated before, this is over the issue of tolerance, not civil rights.

Slavery doesn't compromise an entire nation because it's one issue.

That would be right.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

As this isn't a problem with the whole of the country, why is it relevant and why should it be allowed to impact the minority?

[...]

That would be right.

I would like to address your other points, but before I do so, allow me to ask just one question to make sure I haven't mistaken your train of thought. ^_^;

Please entertain a hypothetical situation in which slavery is re-enacted in the United States because of popular vote (meaning the majority of Americans decided to support slavery), despite the fact that it violates the Bill of Rights. This, of course, is unlikely to happen within this century, but, again, please entertain this scenario for a moment. If this does happen, would you support it? Would you believe it was right? And would you believe the integrity of this nation is not compromised because it's merely "one issue"?

EDIT: I'm sorry, I have another question: What do you consider to be a problem with the whole of the United States? XD

Originally Posted by Ysionris

I would like to address your other points, but before I do so, allow me to ask just one question to make sure I haven't mistaken your train of thought. ^_^;

Please entertain a hypothetical situation in which slavery is re-enacted in the United States because of popular vote (meaning the majority of Americans decided to support slavery), despite the fact that it violates the Bill of Rights. This, of course, is unlikely to happen within this century, but, again, please entertain this scenario for a moment. If this does happen, would you support it? Would you believe it was right? And would you believe the integrity of this nation is not compromised because it's merely "one issue"?

EDIT: I'm sorry, I have another question: What do you consider to be a problem with the whole of the United States? XD

Okay, well, no, I wouldn't support it, no it wouldn't be right, and no, the integrity of the nation is not compromised assuming we were to revert to the way we were, except in a modern sense. The minority is a part of the country and shouldn't be ignored.

Do you think it's fair to label a nation as an intolerant one and unfairly label the minority you don't even consider?

Regardless of laws enacted, or ignorant majorities, no country, unless 100% of the population has the same intolerance, can be considered intolerant. To do so, is to be ignorant of the minority who you don't bother to recognize.

All you are telling me is that the majority is intolerant or inhumane, you can say the state is intolerant, you can say the majority or the minority is intolerant, but you can't call the whole country intolerant, unless it meets that stellar requirement I mentioned, which is rather impossible.

All you are doing is committing an injustice towards the minority of a country by claiming the country itself is ignorant/intolerant.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Okay, well, no, I wouldn't support it, no it wouldn't be right, and no, the integrity of the nation is not compromised assuming we were to revert to the way we were, except in a modern sense. The minority is a part of the country and shouldn't be ignored.

Okay, I guess I can meet you halfway. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Do you think it's fair to label a nation as an intolerant one and unfairly label the minority you don't even consider?

Again, I've been stressing that it isn't the entire country per se as much as it is the majority of its population. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Regardless of laws enacted, or ignorant majorities, no country, unless 100% of the population has the same intolerance, can be considered intolerant. To do so, is to be ignorant of the minority who you don't bother to recognize.

That...is a rather extreme interpretation. Entertain this question, please: Do you consider traditionalist Islamic nations, or nations like China, to be intolerant?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

All you are telling me is that the majority is intolerant or inhumane, you can say the state is intolerant, you can say the majority or the minority is intolerant, but you can't call the whole country intolerant, unless it meets that stellar requirement I mentioned, which is rather impossible.

The "state" and the "populace" are two different aspects. By "state", we mean government, which - usually - does a fairly good job at promoting equality. Except when someone especially horrid takes office, but let's not go there. Also, as I mentioned before, your stellar requirement is rather...extreme. It's like saying Hitler's actions as the German Fuhrer were not entirely intolerable because he loved dogs and was a strict vegetarian. It...just really doesn't mesh.

Again, my problem is not with the whole nation, the whole government, or the whole populace...just a very large percentage of the populace.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

All you are doing is committing an injustice towards the minority of a country by claiming the country itself is ignorant/intolerant.

Please look up to previous points I've met, thank you. =3

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Again, I've been stressing that it isn't the entire country per se as much as it is the majority of its population. ^_^;

I know, in which case the majority would be intolerant to no slavery.

That...is a rather extreme interpretation. Entertain this question, please: Do you consider traditionalist Islamic nations, or nations like China, to be intolerant?

I don't know enough about China to say. The Islamic nations, I would say the states and possibly the majorities are.

The "state" and the "populace" are two different aspects. By "state", we mean government, which - usually - does a fairly good job at promoting equality. Except when someone especially horrid takes office, but let's not go there. Also, as I mentioned before, your stellar requirement is rather...extreme. It's like saying Hitler's actions as the German Fuhrer were not entirely intolerable because he loved dogs and was a strict vegetarian. It...just really doesn't mesh.

Why is it so extreme? Why should anyone have to be called intolerant because of those around them?

Hitler is one person, not a nation.

Again, my problem is not with the whole nation, the whole government, or the whole populace...just a very large percentage of the populace.

I can understand that, however, can we not agree that the minority shouldn't be subject to slander because of the majority?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I don't know enough about China to say. The Islamic nations, I would say the states and possibly the majorities are.

Would you say it compromises the country's morality?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Why is it so extreme? Why should anyone have to be called intolerant because of those around them?

Hitler is one person, not a nation.

Look for example in next paragraph, please. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

I can understand that, however, can we not agree that the minority shouldn't be subject to slander because of the majority?

We can. ^_^

The problem, unfortunately, is that not a great many people make that distinction, and it's not for an entirely bad reason. The majority of modern Americans today may, for example, look upon Erwin Rommel fondly as an honorable commander...but that still doesn't mean said Americans still won't hate the rest of the Nazis. They won't say "the Nazis were not pricks" on the account of, say, one Erwin Rommel. <_<

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Would you say it compromises the country's morality?

Again, only the people that think that way, be it the state or the majority, or the minority.

We can. ^_^

The problem, unfortunately, is that not a great many people make that distinction, and it's not for an entirely bad reason. The majority of modern Americans today may, for example, look upon Erwin Rommel fondly as an honorable commander...but that still doesn't mean said Americans still won't hate the rest of the Nazis. They won't say "the Nazis were not pricks" on the account of, say, one Erwin Rommel. <_<

It's not for a bad reason, it's just a generalization. But it's an unfair one, wouldn't you say?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

It's not for a bad reason, it's just a generalization. But it's an unfair one, wouldn't you say?

So, then, it would be unjust for Americans to say that the Nazis were "evil" because Erwin Rommel, a Nazi, wasn't?