CDZ Where/what are people's principles? Why don't they adhere to them if they believe in them?

[320 Years of History]

I was reading through the posts in another thread and came upon this one:

Social media and cell phones have a far more damaging effect on young girls educational development than any failing of the public school system. You can't expect young girls to excel in their pre-college studies when they spend 90% of every waking hour texting and taking selfies. It is not the job of the school systems to motivate and inspire, that is the job of their parents. If you want your daughter to have the best opportunities, set some expectations at home.

In reading that post, I found myself asking the poster a question in my mind: What's your position on guns? I don't know what that member's position is, and I don't really care either, because, in and of itself, it's not relevant to this thread or the other thread. I do know, however, that if one buys into the principle that "guns aren't to blame for gun deaths," one necessarily and logically speaking (should) ascribe also to the principle of "assign blame and causality where it belongs, with the person(s) who uses the tool, not the tool itself or the makers of it." The reason one should so ascribe is because that view expresses a principle, one that ought to apply to more than just guns, that is, if it's any good in one's personal set of guidelines that drive how one thinks and acts in general.

Why then might one adopt a different philosophy for a different tool, which is exactly what cell phones and social media are? I cannot answer that question accurately for anyone in particular whom I don't know, but I can say that I think folks who don't espouse different principles to the same aspects of different scenarios are, to me at least, unprincipled or haven't given much real consideration to what principles they truly espouse.

You see, I am fine with folks having different sets of principles from mine. What I find irksome is that they don't apply them in a consistent manner. For example, I agree with the above member's final conclusion and its implications. I don't agree that social media and cell phones are the causes of anything; however, I find it perfectly acceptable to constrain young people's -- girls' and boys' -- use of/access to social media. Similarly, I'm fine with would be gun controllers' efforts to constrain use of/access to guns.

Tools and what to do about them aren't the only matters where I have observed a lack of consistency. I see the same thing exhibited by some folks with regard to social and economic policy. For example, if the topic is jobs, I hear folks gripe about how hard it is to get one and they blame that it is on any number of folks other than themselves and that's why they can't find work that pays well enough to suit them. Capitalism is to blame. Yet if the topic is affirmative action, those very same folks drag out all the old saws about folks being lazy and/or having the same opportunities as everyone else, etc., and they miraculously are the world's advocates of capitalism, getting off one's duff and doing something for oneself, and they stridently oppose anything that smacks of the government doing something to help its citizens.

What all of the above examples illustrate to me is pure and simple selfishness and self interest, not anything that I can call principled thought and behavior as goes policy making. Being principled requires one to think through them and identify what's good and bad about the principles one will adopt. There are no principles that have no downsides, but being principled means accepting those negatives, both when they apply to oneself and to others. One need not like having to apply the negatives to oneself, but must yet do so.

 

[jwoodie]

being principled means accepting those negatives, both when they apply to oneself and to others.

Therein lies the rub: To thine own self be true, but applying one's principles to others sows the seeds of authoritarianism.

 

[oldsoul]

I was reading through the posts in another thread and came upon this one:

Social media and cell phones have a far more damaging effect on young girls educational development than any failing of the public school system. You can't expect young girls to excel in their pre-college studies when they spend 90% of every waking hour texting and taking selfies. It is not the job of the school systems to motivate and inspire, that is the job of their parents. If you want your daughter to have the best opportunities, set some expectations at home.

In reading that post, I found myself asking the poster a question in my mind: What's your position on guns? I don't know what that member's position is, and I don't really care either, because, in and of itself, it's not relevant to this thread or the other thread. I do know, however, that if one buys into the principle that "guns aren't to blame for gun deaths," one necessarily and logically speaking (should) ascribe also to the principle of "assign blame and causality where it belongs, with the person(s) who uses the tool, not the tool itself or the makers of it." The reason one should so ascribe is because that view expresses a principle, one that ought to apply to more than just guns, that is, if it's any good in one's personal set of guidelines that drive how one thinks and acts in general.

Why then might one adopt a different philosophy for a different tool, which is exactly what cell phones and social media are? I cannot answer that question accurately for anyone in particular whom I don't know, but I can say that I think folks who don't espouse different principles to the same aspects of different scenarios are, to me at least, unprincipled or haven't given much real consideration to what principles they truly espouse.

You see, I am fine with folks having different sets of principles from mine. What I find irksome is that they don't apply them in a consistent manner. For example, I agree with the above member's final conclusion and its implications. I don't agree that social media and cell phones are the causes of anything; however, I find it perfectly acceptable to constrain young people's -- girls' and boys' -- use of/access to social media. Similarly, I'm fine with would be gun controllers' efforts to constrain use of/access to guns.

Tools and what to do about them aren't the only matters where I have observed a lack of consistency. I see the same thing exhibited by some folks with regard to social and economic policy. For example, if the topic is jobs, I hear folks gripe about how hard it is to get one and they blame that it is on any number of folks other than themselves and that's why they can't find work that pays well enough to suit them. Capitalism is to blame. Yet if the topic is affirmative action, those very same folks drag out all the old saws about folks being lazy and/or having the same opportunities as everyone else, etc., and they miraculously are the world's advocates of capitalism, getting off one's duff and doing something for oneself, and they stridently oppose anything that smacks of the government doing something to help its citizens.

What all of the above examples illustrate to me is pure and simple selfishness and self interest, not anything that I can call principled thought and behavior as goes policy making. Being principled requires one to think through them and identify what's good and bad about the principles one will adopt. There are no principles that have no downsides, but being principled means accepting those negatives, both when they apply to oneself and to others. One need not like having to apply the negatives to oneself, but must yet do so.

Well put. I see the same things happening all the time. It is, quite possibly, the biggest issue I have with society at large. Far too many people seem to have the mentality of "Do as I say, not as I do." And, "It's just not my fault" (whatever the situation).
For me, I have had very serious economic trouble at various times in my life, and I have NEVER blamed anyone but myself (even when I was told, "You and I are both the wrong sex and the wrong color." When I was turned down for a promotion). I have always seen adversity as a motivator for change and improvement of myself. As I get older, I find this is an attitude that is dying in this country, and I find it very sad and deeply troubling for our collective future.
Where would we be if the "greatest Generation" (WWII), said, "I didn't cause this and I don't have to do anything to fix it."? I would suggest that we may all be speaking German, except those who do not fit into Hitler's "Aryan Race".

 

[OldLady]

But don't we live in a democracy, where the majority's principles need to be 'lived with' until the next election? A great many people are blaming Obama for being authoritarian, but a majority of Americans voted him in office. It's still democracy, in my mind.

 

[jwoodie]

But don't we live in a democracy, where the majority's principles need to be 'lived with' until the next election?

No, we live in a constitutional republic wherein the government has been granted limited powers by the people. Democracy is the means by which we select representatives to exercise those limited powers. Our principles reside in the Constitution, not the whims of a fickle electorate.

 

[Asclepias]

The main reason is because most people dont consciously state their principles every day. They live on emotion. In order to maintain your principles you must reaffirm them each day. Most people talk a good game but when it comes down to action your muscle memory kicks in.

 

[OldLady]

But don't we live in a democracy, where the majority's principles need to be 'lived with' until the next election?

No, we live in a constitutional republic wherein the government has been granted limited powers by the people. Democracy is the means by which we select representatives to exercise those limited powers. Our principles reside in the Constitution, not the whims of a fickle electorate.

So what are you saying? We do not elect by majority who represents us in the legislature, the presidency? Sure could have fooled me.

 

[jwoodie]

But don't we live in a democracy, where the majority's principles need to be 'lived with' until the next election?

No, we live in a constitutional republic wherein the government has been granted limited powers by the people. Democracy is the means by which we select representatives to exercise those limited powers. Our principles reside in the Constitution, not the whims of a fickle electorate.

So what are you saying? We do not elect by majority who represents us in the legislature, the presidency? Sure could have fooled me.

Did you actually read my post?

 

[OldLady]

But don't we live in a democracy, where the majority's principles need to be 'lived with' until the next election?

No, we live in a constitutional republic wherein the government has been granted limited powers by the people. Democracy is the means by which we select representatives to exercise those limited powers. Our principles reside in the Constitution, not the whims of a fickle electorate.

So what are you saying? We do not elect by majority who represents us in the legislature, the presidency? Sure could have fooled me.

Time for a new eyeglass prescription?

No, time for a thread where the posters have something worthwhile to say.

 

[jwoodie]

So what are you saying? We do not elect by majority who represents us in the legislature, the presidency? Sure could have fooled me.

"Democracy is the means by which we select representatives to exercise those limited powers." (Democracy=majority vote)

So what, exactly, is your question?

 

[320 Years of History]

But don't we live in a democracy, where the majority's principles need to be 'lived with' until the next election? A great many people are blaming Obama for being authoritarian, but a majority of Americans voted him in office. It's still democracy, in my mind.

It absolutely is. Strictly, its a republic, but a democratic one, but that distinction isn't pertinent to your remarks and theme, at least I don't think it is at this point.

In order to maintain your principles you must reaffirm them each day.

I get the theme of your remarks. I agree iwith it.

Red:
Does one really need to do that? I can't say as I have only to live by my own principles and they have become such an integral part of who I am that I don't need to think about them so much. Responding in line with them is at this point in my life instinctive.

Don't get me wrong. Situations arise that force me to chose an outcome or approach that I really don't like too much, but choose it I must and I must pay the price for it.

• Free Trade -- I don't like that free trade makes it more profitable for producers to build outside the U.S. the goods they want to sell in the U.S., but I would like even less that the cost of the goods I want to buy is higher. I know that for me the higher price won't matter, but I know for many, perhaps most, people, the higher salary they get by being the domestic worker who physically makes those goods isn't going to offset the price increase, particularly if the increases occur across multiple "popular" industries.
  
  Unfortunately, I also know those folks whom such changes will most affect won't believe me until they try it their way, at which point they'll just be complaining about high prices rather than accepting that they got what they asked for and now they don't like it.
  
  That said, I believe in the principles and benefits of supply and demand as practiced in capitalism and what I want to do is find ways to make other folks successful using those principles, not "tweak" the principles, what some might call the system, to artificially create satisfaction.
• Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Exports -- This is what creates jobs under capitalism. Basically, what the country needs is a means by which "the little guy" can get his bright ideas before investors who, for a cut, help him bring it to fruition. We don't need protections for existing industries, we need "incubators" for new goods/services and "brokers" who can efficiently bring the folks who have good ideas together with the folks who have money to invest in them. To use TV lingo, the government is well placed to act as that broker. It attempts to do that now, but it's not as good at it as it needs to be.
  
  Now might it be that in getting their idea accepted by a "big fish," the "little fish" in the long run earns less form it than does the "big fish?" That could happen, but it doesn't have to. Do you think the folks who sold their apps to Microsoft or Oracle, or whomever are upset over the millions they were paid for them? I doubt they are. Even if they are, did they have the will and wherewithal to take their idea as far as Oracle or Microsoft did? In most cases, no, so they don't really have something to complain about anyway, no matter how far their "big fish" investor took the idea.
  
  What's the principle there? One is that given my abilities and limitations, be they by my own hand or not, how content or upset I should be depends on whether I've done the best I can, not whether there was some way that I "back then" may have been able to do more, but "back then" I wasn't willing to do more to make that happen. That I was unwilling is my fault, so too are the consequences of my having been unwilling; they are not someone else's.
  
  Another principle is that capitalism works and works well. The thing to do is show folks how to make it work for them, not use it against them. If that's how the government needs to use its revenue, then so be it. Eventually, how to be a capitalist and not be a "victim" of capitalism's ills will become common knowledge among Americans just as it is among the people in other countries.
  
  I have to say, I'm amazed at how much more entrepreneurial folks are in other countries as compared with their American counterparts in society/the economy. Even in places like the PRC. That drive to be in business is why so many foreigners can come to the U.S. and be successful. One need only go to a local dry cleaners or Chinese carry-out restaurant to understand. Those proprietors aren't getting "Bill Gates" rich, but they are doing well because they are capitalists, not simply laborers, who've found a niche in the marketplace where there is ample demand and they don't have to compete against giants. So they make a decent living.

Those are just two illustrations. There are lots more, some of which have to do directly with governmental policy, others that are just life principles. Such as just being fully honest all the time.

For example, some while back I was checking my folks' car and I noticed the coolant was low. I topped it off, but overfilled it a bit. I thought it wouldn't be a problem. I was wrong. I filled it to the point that it caused radiator hoses to burst/crack. When that happened, I told my folks that it was my fault. I didn't present the matter as though it was "just something that happened." I didn't like that I was the cause of the problem, but I was, and I knew it. I had to "own my sh*t." That it was my parents' car has nothing to do with it, and it wasn't about the money, though the repair turned into a pricey thing as theirs is a somewhat "snazzy" car," and I certainly could have put that money to myriad other good uses.

The principle there is that I apply the same level of integrity for all interpersonal interactions, one of which is anything having to do with representations pertaining to the merit (or lack thereof) of political ideas and policies. I expect folks -- the electorate and those whom they elect -- to be equally complete and aware of nature and extent of what they say/suggest and just be honest about it. Everyone knows that not everything has a perfect and implementable solution. Most folks can handle that. What nobody handles well is being lied to, except maybe to get them to a surprise party or something of that general nature. But as go surprises, few if any wrought by the government are pleasant. LOL

 

[Asclepias]

But don't we live in a democracy, where the majority's principles need to be 'lived with' until the next election? A great many people are blaming Obama for being authoritarian, but a majority of Americans voted him in office. It's still democracy, in my mind.

It absolutely is. Strictly, its a republic, but a democratic one, but that distinction isn't pertinent to your remarks and theme, at least I don't think it is at this point.

In order to maintain your principles you must reaffirm them each day.

I get the theme of your remarks. I agree iwith it.

Red:
Does one really need to do that? I can't say as I have only to live by my own principles and they have become such an integral part of who I am that I don't need to think about them so much. Responding in line with them is at this point in my life instinctive.

Don't get me wrong. Situations arise that force me to chose an outcome or approach that I really don't like too much, but choose it I must and I must pay the price for it.

• Free Trade -- I don't like that free trade makes it more profitable for producers to build outside the U.S. the goods they want to sell in the U.S., but I would like even less that the cost of the goods I want to buy is higher. I know that for me the higher price won't matter, but I know for many, perhaps most, people, the higher salary they get by being the domestic worker who physically makes those goods isn't going to offset the price increase, particularly if the increases occur across multiple "popular" industries.
  
  Unfortunately, I also know those folks whom such changes will most affect won't believe me until they try it their way, at which point they'll just be complaining about high prices rather than accepting that they got what they asked for and now they don't like it.
  
  That said, I believe in the principles and benefits of supply and demand as practiced in capitalism and what I want to do is find ways to make other folks successful using those principles, not "tweak" the principles, what some might call the system, to artificially create satisfaction.
• Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Exports -- This is what creates jobs under capitalism. Basically, what the country needs is a means by which "the little guy" can get his bright ideas before investors who, for a cut, help him bring it to fruition. We don't need protections for existing industries, we need "incubators" for new goods/services and "brokers" who can efficiently bring the folks who have good ideas together with the folks who have money to invest in them. To use TV lingo, the government is well placed to act as that broker. It attempts to do that now, but it's not as good at it as it needs to be.
  
  Now might it be that in getting their idea accepted by a "big fish," the "little fish" in the long run earns less form it than does the "big fish?" That could happen, but it doesn't have to. Do you think the folks who sold their apps to Microsoft or Oracle, or whomever are upset over the millions they were paid for them? I doubt they are. Even if they are, did they have the will and wherewithal to take their idea as far as Oracle or Microsoft did? In most cases, no, so they don't really have something to complain about anyway, no matter how far their "big fish" investor took the idea.
  
  What's the principle there? One is that given my abilities and limitations, be they by my own hand or not, how content or upset I should be depends on whether I've done the best I can, not whether there was some way that I "back then" may have been able to do more, but "back then" I wasn't willing to do more to make that happen. That I was unwilling is my fault, so too are the consequences of my having been unwilling; they are not someone else's.
  
  Another principle is that capitalism works and works well. The thing to do is show folks how to make it work for them, not use it against them. If that's how the government needs to use its revenue, then so be it. Eventually, how to be a capitalist and not be a "victim" of capitalism's ills will become common knowledge among Americans just as it is among the people in other countries.
  
  I have to say, I'm amazed at how much more entrepreneurial folks are in other countries as compared with their American counterparts in society/the economy. Even in places like the PRC. That drive to be in business is why so many foreigners can come to the U.S. and be successful. One need only go to a local dry cleaners or Chinese carry-out restaurant to understand. Those proprietors aren't getting "Bill Gates" rich, but they are doing well because they are capitalists, not simply laborers, who've found a niche in the marketplace where there is ample demand and they don't have to compete against giants. So they make a decent living.

Those are just two illustrations. There are lots more, some of which have to do directly with governmental policy, others that are just life principles. Such as just being fully honest all the time.

For example, some while back I was checking my folks' car and I noticed the coolant was low. I topped it off, but overfilled it a bit. I thought it wouldn't be a problem. I was wrong. I filled it to the point that it caused radiator hoses to burst/crack. When that happened, I told my folks that it was my fault. I didn't present the matter as though it was "just something that happened." I didn't like that I was the cause of the problem, but I was, and I knew it. I had to "own my sh*t." That it was my parents' car has nothing to do with it, and it wasn't about the money, though the repair turned into a pricey thing as theirs is a somewhat "snazzy" car," and I certainly could have put that money to myriad other good uses.

The principle there is that I apply the same level of integrity for all interpersonal interactions, one of which is anything having to do with representations pertaining to the merit (or lack thereof) of political ideas and policies. I expect folks -- the electorate and those whom they elect -- to be equally complete and aware of nature and extent of what they say/suggest and just be honest about it. Everyone knows that not everything has a perfect and implementable solution. Most folks can handle that. What nobody handles well is being lied to, except maybe to get them to a surprise party or something of that general nature. But as go surprises, few if any wrought by the government are pleasant. LOL

I would say yes you need to reaffirm them daily to keep them at the forefront of your mind. While some of your principles are now instinctive in your POV they really are not. You face decisions often enough that require you to think about and act on them and now they seem instinctive. Some change due to the natural progression of growing up, older, new experiences etc. if you are open minded. Since principles are constructs of the mind they are subject to change and manipulation. Reaffirming them daily negates any changes.

 

[320 Years of History]

Some change due to the natural progression of growing up, older, new experiences etc. if you are open minded. Since principles are constructs of the mind they are subject to change and manipulation.

In my younger days (pre-40 years old or so) sure, that happened. Now, not so much if at all.

Nonetheless, daily reaffirmation will go a long way to keeping them in the forefront of one's mind.

FWIW, I don't have too much of an issue with one's changing their principles, but I do if they change like the seasons. LOL I also think that upon reaching a certain age, perhaps 50-something, one should have and likely will have thought enough about one's principles that they would at the most be tweaked more so than changing diametrically.

 

[Asclepias]

Some change due to the natural progression of growing up, older, new experiences etc. if you are open minded. Since principles are constructs of the mind they are subject to change and manipulation.

In my younger days (pre-40 years old or so) sure, that happened. Now, not so much if at all.

Nonetheless, daily reaffirmation will go a long way to keeping them in the forefront of one's mind.

FWIW, I don't have too much of an issue with one's changing their principles, but I do if they change like the seasons. LOL I also think that upon reaching a certain age, one should have and likely will have thought enough about one's principles that they would at the most be tweaked more so than changing diametrically.

What if you experienced a truth that is irrefutable? At what age should ones principles be formed into unyielding stone?

 

[320 Years of History]

Some change due to the natural progression of growing up, older, new experiences etc. if you are open minded. Since principles are constructs of the mind they are subject to change and manipulation.

In my younger days (pre-40 years old or so) sure, that happened. Now, not so much if at all.

Nonetheless, daily reaffirmation will go a long way to keeping them in the forefront of one's mind.

FWIW, I don't have too much of an issue with one's changing their principles, but I do if they change like the seasons. LOL I also think that upon reaching a certain age, one should have and likely will have thought enough about one's principles that they would at the most be tweaked more so than changing diametrically.

What if you experienced a truth that is irrefutable? At what age should ones principles be formed into unyielding stone?

If something comes about that truly is a new truth, well, one may or may not need to alter one's principle(s) that governs one's behavior with regard to that truth.

The thing is, just how many new truths appear by the time one is 50+? I guess plenty can, but when there are that many that far along in life, one must wonder how much of what one "understood" as reality was in fact reality?

For example, if aliens landed and proved to us that they were the creators of humanity, would theists give up their notions of what/who God is? I don't know. I know I would, and yes, I'd have to alter some principles were that to happen.

 

[MarathonMike]

I was reading through the posts in another thread and came upon this one:

Social media and cell phones have a far more damaging effect on young girls educational development than any failing of the public school system. You can't expect young girls to excel in their pre-college studies when they spend 90% of every waking hour texting and taking selfies. It is not the job of the school systems to motivate and inspire, that is the job of their parents. If you want your daughter to have the best opportunities, set some expectations at home.

I agree with just about everything you've written here. I have always believed that one of the most damaging things people do to themselves is blame someone or something else about their problems.​

In reading that post, I found myself asking the poster a question in my mind: What's your position on guns? I don't know what that member's position is, and I don't really care either, because, in and of itself, it's not relevant to this thread or the other thread. I do know, however, that if one buys into the principle that "guns aren't to blame for gun deaths," one necessarily and logically speaking (should) ascribe also to the principle of "assign blame and causality where it belongs, with the person(s) who uses the tool, not the tool itself or the makers of it." The reason one should so ascribe is because that view expresses a principle, one that ought to apply to more than just guns, that is, if it's any good in one's personal set of guidelines that drive how one thinks and acts in general.

Why then might one adopt a different philosophy for a different tool, which is exactly what cell phones and social media are? I cannot answer that question accurately for anyone in particular whom I don't know, but I can say that I think folks who don't espouse different principles to the same aspects of different scenarios are, to me at least, unprincipled or haven't given much real consideration to what principles they truly espouse.

You see, I am fine with folks having different sets of principles from mine. What I find irksome is that they don't apply them in a consistent manner. For example, I agree with the above member's final conclusion and its implications. I don't agree that social media and cell phones are the causes of anything; however, I find it perfectly acceptable to constrain young people's -- girls' and boys' -- use of/access to social media. Similarly, I'm fine with would be gun controllers' efforts to constrain use of/access to guns.

Tools and what to do about them aren't the only matters where I have observed a lack of consistency. I see the same thing exhibited by some folks with regard to social and economic policy. For example, if the topic is jobs, I hear folks gripe about how hard it is to get one and they blame that it is on any number of folks other than themselves and that's why they can't find work that pays well enough to suit them. Capitalism is to blame. Yet if the topic is affirmative action, those very same folks drag out all the old saws about folks being lazy and/or having the same opportunities as everyone else, etc., and they miraculously are the world's advocates of capitalism, getting off one's duff and doing something for oneself, and they stridently oppose anything that smacks of the government doing something to help its citizens.

What all of the above examples illustrate to me is pure and simple selfishness and self interest, not anything that I can call principled thought and behavior as goes policy making. Being principled requires one to think through them and identify what's good and bad about the principles one will adopt. There are no principles that have no downsides, but being principled means accepting those negatives, both when they apply to oneself and to others. One need not like having to apply the negatives to oneself, but must yet do so.

I was reading through the posts in another thread and came upon this one:

Social media and cell phones have a far more damaging effect on young girls educational development than any failing of the public school system. You can't expect young girls to excel in their pre-college studies when they spend 90% of every waking hour texting and taking selfies. It is not the job of the school systems to motivate and inspire, that is the job of their parents. If you want your daughter to have the best opportunities, set some expectations at home.

In reading that post, I found myself asking the poster a question in my mind: What's your position on guns? I don't know what that member's position is, and I don't really care either, because, in and of itself, it's not relevant to this thread or the other thread. I do know, however, that if one buys into the principle that "guns aren't to blame for gun deaths," one necessarily and logically speaking (should) ascribe also to the principle of "assign blame and causality where it belongs, with the person(s) who uses the tool, not the tool itself or the makers of it." The reason one should so ascribe is because that view expresses a principle, one that ought to apply to more than just guns, that is, if it's any good in one's personal set of guidelines that drive how one thinks and acts in general.

Why then might one adopt a different philosophy for a different tool, which is exactly what cell phones and social media are? I cannot answer that question accurately for anyone in particular whom I don't know, but I can say that I think folks who don't espouse different principles to the same aspects of different scenarios are, to me at least, unprincipled or haven't given much real consideration to what principles they truly espouse.

You see, I am fine with folks having different sets of principles from mine. What I find irksome is that they don't apply them in a consistent manner. For example, I agree with the above member's final conclusion and its implications. I don't agree that social media and cell phones are the causes of anything; however, I find it perfectly acceptable to constrain young people's -- girls' and boys' -- use of/access to social media. Similarly, I'm fine with would be gun controllers' efforts to constrain use of/access to guns.

Tools and what to do about them aren't the only matters where I have observed a lack of consistency. I see the same thing exhibited by some folks with regard to social and economic policy. For example, if the topic is jobs, I hear folks gripe about how hard it is to get one and they blame that it is on any number of folks other than themselves and that's why they can't find work that pays well enough to suit them. Capitalism is to blame. Yet if the topic is affirmative action, those very same folks drag out all the old saws about folks being lazy and/or having the same opportunities as everyone else, etc., and they miraculously are the world's advocates of capitalism, getting off one's duff and doing something for oneself, and they stridently oppose anything that smacks of the government doing something to help its citizens.

What all of the above examples illustrate to me is pure and simple selfishness and self interest, not anything that I can call principled thought and behavior as goes policy making. Being principled requires one to think through them and identify what's good and bad about the principles one will adopt. There are no principles that have no downsides, but being principled means accepting those negatives, both when they apply to oneself and to others. One need not like having to apply the negatives to oneself, but must yet do so.

I agree with just about everything you've written here and have always believed that everyone needs a core set of principles and apply them consistently even if it may be inconvenient or painful. Part of that core set of principles should be ownership. Own every decision you make good or bad and accept the consequences of your decisions good or bad. Most of the people I know careen through life making excuses and rationalizations, getting themselves together for a time, and then screwing something else up and playing the blame game again. To use a corny phrase, that's a one way ticket to nowheresville.
The only thing I didn't quite get was drawing a comparison between guns and social media/cell phones. I get the basic analogy that being you have a tool/object that can't do anything without your willingness to use it. And both can be very damaging if misused. The big difference is the peer pressure that young people especially girls (as I observe) are under to misuse cell phones. The Social net is relentless and psychologically addictive and leaves very little time for studies or even going outside and kicking a ball around. Or maybe even just talking to people and putting the damn things down!

 

[320 Years of History]

The only thing I didn't quite get was drawing a comparison between guns and social media/cell phones. I get the basic analogy that being you have a tool/object that can't do anything without your willingness to use it.

Then you got all you should have from the analogy. That was all there was to it, or at least that was all I meant to make of it.