Progressive AMA

I believe the general goal of progressives should be to lead a country to positive progress, specifically in regard to the civil rights of people in general. Such as a woman's right to an abortion, such as a homosexual man's right to marriage, such as a transgender person's right to transition. Etc, etc.. 

What are the specific tenets of progressivism you don't support? Why don't you support them?

Except I think by use of context clues, you can easily tell I am referring to the Christina god, if not, regard this example instead: I can still be a theist and not believe the tenants of typical theism and still believe in a god.

The Christian God is the same as the Judaic God and Islamic God (They're all Abrahamic Religions.) And no, there's only one tenet of theism, and that's to believe in at least one god.

That should satisfy your need to nitpick.

There's no need to nitpick. Only a need to be accurate.

There is no arbitrary about it, I believe in the central goal of progressivism, but because of the ideology, people can disagree about what that best way there. As well as the fact that yes, I technically could determine how progressive I was, by measuring how towards the goal of progressivism my goals align. 

You're conflating practice with philosophy. And no, your goals either align or they don't. And if they don't, you're not by description a "progressive." So if the general goal of progressivism is civil rights, then the reasoning which informs that goal must be consistent throughout. If there's a tenet of progressivism which sustains the same reasoning behind civil rights, but you for some reason deem it inconsistent with your goals, then you are being arbitrary. I suppose another consideration would be that progressivism isn't a consistent political position, and more of an itemized list of hypocritical requests.

I would disagree, that is one way you could say that they are made up,

No, that is the only way they're made up.

but this is a naive approach that is limiting unneedlessly.

Yes it is intended to limit, giving distinction between itself and other philosophies and/or particularizing its ends. There's nothing "naive" about understanding that.

As you were so quick to ignore, one could simply identify the goal of one's political ideology and measure yourself based on this.

What's the utility in "measuring"? You either adhere to the goal or you don't.

This is you assuming that there is only one way to define or measure a political ideology. 

I don't assume there's only one way to define or measure a political ideology. First, as you can probably tell from above, I reject the utility of "measuring." And the definition is the definition--I don't assume it.

I am still a Christian if I believe in god/jesus but I also believe that we shouldn't stone gay people. I am still a Christian if I believe I shouldn't own slaves, etc, etc...

First the Bible doesn't state anywhere to "stone gay people," or prescribe "owning slaves." (It recommends stoning for pretty much everything else.) Yes, the Bible states that homosexuality is an abomination whose participants should be put to death, and that slavery ought to be regulated, but those aren't the principles taught by Jesus Christ which informs Christianity. Your analogy falls short. If you don't live by and sustain the principles and values taught by Jesus Christ, then you are not Christian.

Never did I say I disagreed with any of them, I was simply saying I may or may not reflect all of their opinions. Same answer as the last one, and as far as I am aware, yes.

With which tenets, principles, precepts, or opinions you may or may not reflect? Why don't you reflect them?

I'm not sure actually... I'd have to really think about that one. I've already made the point that I think as long as your general goal aligns with the philosophy of the political ideology, you are said ideology. Now, if you disagree, that's fine, that's just what I'm talking about when I say progressivism. How about this, just give me what you think some core tenants are, and then I'll respond ya or nay and why. That sound fair?

Eh, that's more along the lines of Deism, to be a theist, you have to assign attributes to said god, and which attributes are the tenets I'm referring to. As most theists say they should strive to be like god, or that they're made in god's image. This implies that these characteristics are preferable. A couple extrapolations and bada beem bada boom.

Using context it was fairly easy to tell what I was referring to, so yes, that was a nitpick. 

See, now you're being arbitrary, assigning a dichotomy along which an idea can lay, why? Can things not be nuanced?

What I was saying there is that how I determine how progressivist I am by identifying the center or main goal of progressivism and seeing if my goals align. If yes, I am, if no, then I'm not. People can think there goals align with progressism the center idea and be right or wrong, therefore they may appear and label themselves progressive and not actually be progressive, but no one would be able to tell until they're thoughts and ideas were weighted for valid or consistency. I am not deeming it inconsistent with my goals, but the goals of progressivism essentially. That is what I meant people can disagree. 

Ideology - "A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

Here you are simply factually incorrect.

Naive - "showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement."

Here we see a lack of judgement, at least on this subject, it arbitrarily limits what an ideology is, even though the dictionary specifically disagrees with you. Why do you limit like so? Ideology does not mean what you seem to think it does.

Once again, locking it in a binary, while it is true that you either believe a proposition to be true, or you don't the same can not be said for systems of thought or ideas. Certain ideas can be less or more aligned with an ideology, people may believe it to be a goal, but not the most important, there are lots of ways of measuring this. Again, arbitrary. 

But.... you literally did, I already provided a definition that specifically doesn't back your approach. 

That's also wrong... because it doesn't fit the people who would still make it to christian and don't apply those principals. Are these people not "Christians"?

Even though they get to make it to heaven and forever are rewarded?

Is a person who is sent to hell because they did not believe in christ, yet follow his teachings closely a christian?

Is the murderer who only converted in his last moments (truly repented) and never followed christ except for those last moments a chrsitian?

No. You're rebuttal falls short.

Though if we assume that the bible is informing the government which they governed over, and people are commanded to kill a man who sleepeth with another man, its not far to say stoning.

And the bible explicitly says you shouldn't steal, yet it doesn't say the same of slavery? Just tell them to stop slavery, that was never commanded therefore, an endorsment.

Throw out some principals and I'll tell you if I agree or disagree. Then you decided if I am a progressive or not.

Take the example of one's being "pro-choice" and supporting "age of consent" laws. Presumably one is pro-choice because they support the principle that a person's body falls within that person's domain; thus how one behaves one's body is at one's discretion. Why then would this not be the case as it applies to sex? And progressives are notorious for lobbying to raise the age of consent. Why then is it a goal to preserve one's bodily integrity as it applies to exercising an abortion, but not a goal to preserve it when it concerns the act of which an abortion is a consequence? How does the inconsistency not undermine the ideology?

This is contradicting your previous argument. You stated that you can still believe in a god, be a theist, and not subscribe to the particular tenets associated with that brand of theism. And with this argument, you're stating that theism is defined by its tenets; even if you were arguing that these tenets are subject to debate (and they're really not) that would make the tenets irrelevant given that their being moot would dissolve any distinctions between religions. Thus, theism would necessitate believing in at least one god, regardless of the tenets. 

No, it wasn't. But we not debate over this, anymore

I'm not being arbitrary at all. The opposite, actually: I'm consistent. And yes, they cannot be nuanced. Feelings can be nuanced. The environment can be nuanced. Situations can be nuanced. Principles cannot. Because principles act as axioms which serve an absolute condition.

No, this is just a pretext used to inform the hypocrisy of your position. Case in point: I support a pro-choice position. Does this endorsement make me a Democrat or a progressive? No. It doesn't even make me slightly "progressive." Even if I were to agree with most "progressive" principles, I still wouldn't be a "progressive." Because "most" and not "all" just means that I have not reconciled the reasoning that informs my supporting most, but not the rest--of course presuming progressivism is a set of consistent principles. (I would argue that it's not--one of those reasons mentioned above.)

How am I "factually incorrect"? How does this either refute or exclude my description

First, "seem" is not an argument; second, where does "the dictionary specifically disagree with [me]"?

Describe how one functionally adheres and does not adhere to a goal. And we're not talking about subjective gauges of significance. We're talking about the constitution of adherence.

You've done no such thing. You provided a definition which you have yet to delineate its exclusion of my description.

No, they are not Christians.

How do you know this?

How does one who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ get sent to Hell? How do we know they were sent to Hell?

Yes. There are no temporal or chronological restrictions on following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

How?

But that is no less an assumption. You're ascribing it Christianity as one of its principles

No

You know the ones you follow, and presumably, you know the ones you don't follow. Which are the ones you don't follow? Which are the ones you associate with progressivism, but with which you don't align your goals?

To answer your last question first, because you have no idea what your talking about.

Pro-choice is the take that the one impregnated has the choice of what develops in their body.. pretty straight forwards that's just the freedom of anatomy.

Raising the age of consent is typically argued for the same reasons that raising the age for drafting or drinking is, because the brain is not fully developed. The argument typically goes along the lines that having sex with someone under the age of consent is statutory rape

but people object to that specific line... 18, is arbitary, thus, they want to raise the line to something which isn't arbitrary. Someone who is seeking abortion is seeking to correct something that has happened to them - whereas the age of consent is speaking of someone's physical and mental fortitude to do x or y.

Obviously people who aren't 18 have had sex and can handle it fine, but the problem is to protect the masses, so speaking from a policy perspective, the choice is either: Leave it at a line which was arbitrary in the first place, or raise it to somewhere that makes sense. Of course, some would argue that's lower, and some would argue that its higher. But the fundamental point is that the difference is correcting a state that they are in, and doing something with lots of potential bad consequences. the two things aren't equatable.

You have made a false comparison, congratulations. 

Um.... no, did you not understand the point? The proper point is that, there are tenents being preferred, the actual specific tenets don't actually matter - just that there are some. That was what I was talking about. You are right in a manner of speaking, theism is of "tenets", but rather than what ones, as you seem to believe, its a question of if there are any at all. This entire point was about how- as long as your believed in that god, you don't have to necessarily adopt all of the positions that, say, the bible supports.

Look at the guy, misunderstanding another word! Give him a clap on the back! Yes, some principles are axioms, others are not. Some principles are axioms - and as such people can be incorrect about what axioms logically lead to, such is every logical fallacy. But still.... axioms are nuanced, things which are true still hold nuance. An axiom is a thing which is self-evidently true, established, or accepted - nothing about that is absolute, I suppose you could argue that something which is self-evidently true is absolute, but I would say that logic can be nuanced... so again, incorrect.

Your entire point is based on faulty reasoning, such as false equivalences and non-sequiturs. Again, an ideology is just a system of idea and ideals, what about that is absolute? What about that can't be misinterpreted, what about that must stay consistent? I would argue that progressives have the same core values, and whether a policy reaches that goal is what depends if something is of that ideology, just like principles can be applied differently and be correct or incorrect based on the circumstances - that seem thing applies to how ideas are under a ideology. Sometimes things can be more aligned or less aligned, that's a basic part of any "ideal" because its necessarily subjective and relative. What you stack on top of that is the objective part. Most of your ideas can be aligned with progressisvm and you can not at all be a progressive I agree, if your fundamental goal or end result you seek is not that of progressivism then you aren't one - that is true, but again, people can disagree what best gets you to those ideas, and you don't even address that point, you literally hand wave it away and try to use red herrings as if their arguments.

Someone isn't paying attention - we are talking of political ideologies no? If an idea is just a system of ideas and ideals, you argued for something to apply to a political ideology you must agree with all tenets... except... those tenets will always be up for debate, of course there may be a true set of tenets that will lead you to a goal, but there may be another way to get to that goal, to accomplish it. To get from 4 to 6 you could add two, or you could subtract negative 2, either way gets you to 6. You could multiple 4  by 1.5 and get 6. My point - is that there are multiple ways to get to a goal, therefore, each progressive might have different ideas on what is the best way to get to the goal. Thus debating between progressives is deciding which tenets, even principles are the right way to get to a goal.

Mmhm, it actually is - the preponderance of evidence or the likely hood of something can point in a direction, say to either x or y, and the other be technically true, so I am careful with my language in that regard.

.. and I explained it above.

Do you mean how someone can only partially adhere to a goal? Gladly - let's say the goal is to eat some cake.

Technically both things would get you closer to eating a cake, but buying one premade is more aligned with eating a cake, as all you have to do is... buy then eat the cake. Whereas baking the cake makes eating it a secondary priority, otherwise x would have just bought the premade cake.

you can do something towards the first goal which interferes with the second, but the end result and intention still being the first goal.

Because it doesn't and I thought that would be more apparent

So people who believe in christ aren't christians? Is that what you're arguing?

This is basing off of the holy book described, which effectively defines christianity for us. 

If someone were to follow all of Christ's teachings but not believe that he existed,

so in the hypothetical that the christian god exists, and follows the principles of the bible, that's how that would go down.

I explained in the lines above, notice the entire thing is a paragraph? That's because each sentence leads into the next. 

An assumption? That's most likely the case, that is if to say that whenever the cheese is on the counter, that someone left out that cheese is an assumption. And... considering that it was in exodus in a long list of rules.... that is at least a tenet of Christianity. 

Gonna explain yourself?

Mmm. no, I don't think you're arguing in good faith, so I'm sticking to what I said before.

"Early childbirth is especially dangerous for adolescents and their infants. Compared to women between the ages of 20-35, pregnant women under 20 are at a greater risk for death and disease including bleeding during pregnancy, toxemia, hemorrhage, prolonged and difficult labor, severe anemia, and disability. Life-long social and economic disadvantages may be a consequence of teenage birth. Educational and career opportunities may be limited, as may be opportunities for marriage. Teen mothers tend to have larger completed family sizes, shorter birth intervals resulting in both poorer health status for the family, and a more severe level of poverty. The children also suffer; teens mothers have a higher incidence of low birth weight infants which is associated with birth injuries, serious childhood illness, and mental and physical disabilities. Adolescents' access to family planning information and services is limited. Government programs in developing countries have focused on older women to limit family size. In addition, national laws and local customs often prohibit minors from consenting to medical services. "