April 7, 2009
-
The Weak and the Strong
Some time ago I realized that many of the debates in our society reduce rather simply to two sides: the "Weak" side and the "Strong" side. The Weak side consists of those people who desire to be protected from something, while the Strong side are those who believe they can handle it and wish to be allowed to pursue that something to their heart's content.
A quick example of this is wearing a helmet while bicycling. A Weak person feels the need to protect themselves in case something bad happens, and is most worried about the risk. A Strong person feels that the helmet represses them from truly enjoying the bicycling experience and adds extra weight.
It's fascinating to see how many political arguments disintegrate into Weak/Strong debates:
Should we give aid to Africa?
Should abortion be legal?
Who should be allowed to own guns, and what kinds?
What about parental controls?
Should the right to marry be restricted?
Does a person have the right to take their own life or let others take it for them?
Are unions necessary to protect workers?
Should immigration be restricted?
Should drugs be legalized? what about prostitution?It's even more interesting how these arguments do not fit well into the area of one political party. Some Strong-side arguments are Republican; others are Democrat. Neither is one person usually all weak and all strong. Oh, you may argue that a Libertarian Party member tends towards the Strong side, but even that isn't a perfect fit.
The question is, what do we do about such debates? Should we always protect the Weak first and restrain the Strong? But what do we do when the habits of the Strong have negative effects on the Weak? And even the Strong often misjudge what they are actually able to handle or try to oppress the Weak. Another problem is that people tend to lie or glamorize what their true identification (Weak or Strong) is. For whatever reason, people often try to pick a side because they think it's more respectable. There's nothing necessarily more glamorous about being Strong, nor more prudent about being Weak. It is what it is, to a certain extent. For example, many people who were once Strong in their youth become Weak as they age and have children of their own.
So how can we resolve these consistent debates about the Strong and the Weak? We have had several versions of this debate come up in Xanga arguments, in fact. How can people who hold such different views coexist? Answers next time, but let me hear your opinions first and see how wrong/right I am. Here's a question for you now:
Would you describe yourself as Strong or Weak?
Comments (24)
I guess since my driving factor in most issues is personal responsibility/freedom, I would fall under the strong. I'm not sure how you would define weak/strong on all the issues you listed there, it sounds like an oversimplification or false dichotomy.
I cannot put myself into either of these categories. There are some areas in which I am Strong. There are a LOT of areas where I am Weak. Then, there are a few areas where I am somewhere in the middle.
I think we need to find a happy medium between Strong and Weak.
I don't see why people with such different views cannot exist. It seems like the only reason people can't is if they believe themselves better than the others and won't allow themselves to be among "others", and another: they might just refuse to look at the other as human, not as a conservative, liberal, or whatever term they choose.
So, I realized that I answered a question you'll answer next time. So, to answer the big bolded question: I don't know which I am most of the time. Whatever Jesus says, you know.
I very much lean towards the Strong side in many things. Mostly because I don't want to be protected quite as often as I want to be allowed to protect myself.
For example: I believe that bike helmets are good things, and that those who never ever wear them are not wise. However, I don't want some law saying "You must wear a helmet or you'll be fined." I'm a big boy. I can choose to take my helmet off, and choose to face the risks of my own actions.
Likewise on the Right to Marry. I believe that marriage is a precious, God-ordained thing, which God has designed to work a certain way (man/woman, monogamous, mate-for-life). However, I don't need this sanctity of marriage to be protected for me, by laws or bans or constitutional amendments. If I believe the sanctity of marriage needs protecting (and I do), I'll protect it myself--by demonstrating in my own marriage what a God-designed marriage looks like.
Legalize prostitution. Legalize drugs. I believe in a person's right to mess themselves up if they choose. I don't believe that government is supposed to protect us from ourselves, just to protect us from others.
Where I fall on the Weak side--where I want protection--is from other peoples' actions against me. If someone rams their car into mine, and they're fully at fault, they or their insurance should have to pay for my damage; if someone attacks me or kills me and it was unprovoked/not self defense, they should be held accountable; if someone steals from me they should be forced to return it/pay the compensation and also be held accountable in some further way; if someone comes to invade and enslave me, they should be fought off. Those are the issues I fall on the Weak side.
But in almost all instances where the danger to myself is myself, I don't want to be protected.
@Ro_ad808 - It is, to some extent; I'm intentionally trying to push the analogy as far as it will go and seeing whether it will hold or not. Please do point out some specifics. This first post is just pushing the idea as far as it will go and then surveying the damage, ha.
@ChrisRusso - Regulation is the awkward part of weak-strong relationships. My bias is that the strong learn to regulate themselves; having the weak legislate to the strong is so awkward. But in bigger-is-better America, the strong are unlikely to learn moderation. Eh, maybe it's unfair to put it that way, I'm sure a lot is just human nature.
used to be strong...now I think I'm weak
Following precautionary measures despite the urge not to (as the feeling is about being repressed) could still be a show of strength -- respect for the rule of law, obeying authority, and the like.
I think that I am pretty middle of the road. Sometimes being strong is nothing more than stupidity and other times it's simply standing up for what you believe in. Sometimes being weak is nothing more than being wishy washy and afraid and other times, it's simply leaving yourself open for compromise.
Aid to Africa is predominantly given through private organizations if I am not mistaken. The question is if the government should do so. While some weak/strong elements certainly exist, there is a lot more to it than that and circumstances (such as political climate) can play into how the question is answered.
On the abortion issue, I don't see it as a weak/strong issue at all. It's more about consistancy: Should our 'unalienable rights' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness be observed for ALL people or be denied to some based on size, level of development, environment, or dependancy?
I could take most of the issues in similar fashion and show that it is (or at least should be) more about consistancy and holding to a common standard such as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights than to be about one group overpowering another. I think once it becomes strictly about that, then you have polarized the issue into definitive 'sides' and there no longer tends to be any genuine seeking out of truth.
...Just my thoughts. Weak, Strong, what does it matter? What should take precedent is if we are consistant with the standards we have previously set down and where we find contradiction, one must be overturned. For example, if I use the abortion issue, then one could say that Roe v. Wade contradicts the 'unalienable rights' of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, one of the two must be thrown out in its current state.
Generally speaking I would say "strong". I firmly believe in the right of the individual to govern himself. One of the greatest things we have been given is the freedom of choice. There must be some boundaries placed on that because as history has shown us there are those (both weak and strong) who will prey on others as an extension of that freedom.
Generally Strong, but I also (generally) know what I can and can't handle. So I'd say I'm a Cautious Strong?
Not one of those OH YEAH!!! I"M GUNNA TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Strongs.
Yeah, not one of those.
As to whether or not you're right... I think generalizations generally tend to fit, but once you start dividing and subdividing whatever it is you are generalizing, the generalizing does always continue to work.
I'm not sure.
Sometimes I am strong.
Sometimes I am weak.
But whatever I believe I most likely believe strongly in it.
I probably fall on both sides of the weak strong debate it depends on what the topic might be............. "God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the wise."
I don't know if I would call that weak or strong (in part because of the connotations), but rather determined by amount of responsibility/obligation and view of the extent of freedom. Although I can't ride a bike, I'd expect that choosing not to wear a helmet isn't necessarily strong. People should have a right to choose whether or not to wear it, but the ultimate decision, to me, has nothing to do with weak v. strong considering people simply have different opinions of what's more valuable (possibility of getting hurt or not having as good of a time, and this can even change with moods). As far as I'm concerned, as long as the 'strong' cover their negative externalities (pay more for their insurance, for example), then I'm ok. I won't be charged for the death of someone who chose not to buckle their seatbelt when it was their conscious choice. I would say the dichotomy you're referring to is forced 'responsibility' v. freedom.
I would say--middle of the road would be best for society. I suppose I'd lean towards the 'weak' side, though. Nothing makes me angrier than seeing people driving with cell phones in their hands, or people who refuse to use a seat belt, or cigarette smokers where they shouldn't be.
-Anna.
Interesting interpretation.
"How can people who hold such different views coexist?"
Well, I think the weak/strong dualism, even though it may be accurate, can't be useful to approaching an objective method of deciding the issues. We have to agree on certain facts in each case.
I think in different things I'm the strong person, but I mostly pity my situation, heh.
You're not going to be surprised when I say Strong, are you?
I think we are smarter than we give ourselves credit for. Seriously - we can handle so much as a species (yes yes yes
you know what I mean). I think if we all did some more critical thinking on most things we wouldn't have as much "protection" needed. We'd already be protecting what was important to ourselves, and we wouldn't to move forward to protect something for someone else.
And besides, "protection" = big gobernment (and I spelled it wrong on purpose) and We ALL know how I feel about that.
Glad to see you're not dead. That's good.
i guess i would say, i'm a weak but strong person...hmm
it's too hard to say.
When do we get the answer??
I'm weak and repressed, probably.Or maybe just too practical.
What do you consider yourself?
@yourkbear - Next week, unfortunately--I could barely squeeze in today's post. Probably Monday.
@heyjulsiscoo - I'm artificially weak, which annoys me at times. I see how quickly the strong can dominate, and so I feel a need for regulation and control in many areas. But it's annoying because I myself could be "strong" if I wanted to--I have decent self-control, have strength/talent/etc., but I just tend to opt for more "weak" positions overall.
I don't think I would put myself into either of those categories. However, being forced to choose, I would pick strong. Though...I'm not sure a truly strong person would be allowed to have many of my other character traits.
Comments are closed.