DescentBB

roid wrote:So you yearn for the good ol days when most people hated homosexuality (the act, lol) just like you......

Nice straw-man. Drakona was right -- "it sounds like you're looking to confront the moral neanderthals you hate." And when you can't find them, you invent them through misunderstanding. You latched on to a few sentences while ignoring the larger point they were attached to. That's disrespectful and rude. I expect better of you.

you hold such views but don't consider yourself "liberal"

Drakona and I could both be considered "classical liberals", but certainly not "modern American liberals".

to allow freedom, at the cost of widespread racism, is disturbing

Not nearly as disturbing as thought police. Could you imagine living in a place where the government considered widespread atheism to be unacceptable?

If you're only willing to allow freedom of thought and expression if the content is acceptable to you, you haven't actually allowed any freedom.

Lothar wrote:

to allow freedom, at the cost of widespread racism, is disturbing

Not nearly as disturbing as thought police. Could you imagine living in a place where the government considered widespread atheism to be unacceptable?

If you're only willing to allow freedom of thought and expression if the content is acceptable to you, you haven't actually allowed any freedom.

"Freedom" to my point of view was never absolute. It always had rules and restrictions to make society more livable. So, to allow complete freedom at the cost of widespread racism, does not make you "more free", it simply makes you a racist...

You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre no matter how free you think you are.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:"Freedom" to my point of view was never absolute. It always had rules and restrictions to make society more livable.... You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre

Notice I specifically referred to CONTENT restrictions. The restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't about the CONTENT of the message "there is a fire", but about the CONSEQUENCES of yelling such a thing when there's no actual fire to be worried about.

I have no problem with restrictions and rules along the lines of "get a permit to protest" or "don't endanger the public". But I do have a problem with restrictions along the lines of "don't think that" or "don't believe that".

to allow complete freedom at the cost of widespread racism, does not make you "more free", it simply makes you a racist...

Oh please... what a childish accusation.

We allow you complete freedom to share your religious views on this board. That doesn't make me or any of the other admins or mods atheists (though some may be.)

Personally, I find racism incredibly offensive. But I find thought-policing even MORE offensive. I'd much rather deal with racists than deal with an oppressive environment in which people can't express unpopular views.

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:"Freedom" to my point of view was never absolute. It always had rules and restrictions to make society more livable.... You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre

Notice I specifically referred to CONTENT restrictions. The restriction on yelling "fire" in a crowded theater isn't about the CONTENT of the message "there is a fire", but about the CONSEQUENCES of yelling such a thing when there's no actual fire to be worried about.

I have no problem with restrictions and rules along the lines of "get a permit to protest" or "don't endanger the public". But I do have a problem with restrictions along the lines of "don't think that" or "don't believe that".

to allow complete freedom at the cost of widespread racism, does not make you "more free", it simply makes you a racist...

Oh please... what a childish accusation.

We allow you complete freedom to share your religious views on this board. That doesn't make me or any of the other admins or mods atheists (though some may be.)

Personally, I find racism incredibly offensive. But I find thought-policing even MORE offensive. I'd much rather deal with racists than deal with an oppressive environment in which people can't express unpopular views.

I made a general statement without accusing anyone but I do have a problem with this statement and how it relates to freedom of speech.

I do want to permit freedom of speech, even at the cost of cults, widespread racism, or (sigh) liberals.

I just want a clarification because everytime I see it I only see it in a way that allows racist remarks as being perfectly legal anywhere...anytime with total disregard for its consequences.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this.... I often get wrapped up.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:everytime I see it I only see it in a way that allows racist remarks as being perfectly legal anywhere...anytime with total disregard for its consequences.

Why make such an assumption?

Speech shouldn't be restricted based on CONTENT, no matter how offensive that content is. Consequences are another thing entirely.

Maybe this should be a \"split topic\", but I'm putting it in here for now, as it seems to be the direction of discussion.

Bet, Lothar, it's clear you both choose different points along the \"censorship/freedom-of-speech spectrum\".

I'd guess that both of you would avoid the extremes (i.e. \"You-can't-say-anything-except-what's-approved\" on one extreme, \"You-can-say-anything-no-matter-the-consequences\" on the other), correct?

My question is, is there any sub-point at which you might come to agreement?

[For example, \"speech against government\". I would personally think that we should have freedom to speak out against policy we don't agree with, but specific threats against the government should not be allowed.]

Lothar wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:everytime I see it I only see it in a way that allows racist remarks as being perfectly legal anywhere...anytime with total disregard for its consequences.

Why make such an assumption?

Speech shouldn't be restricted based on CONTENT, no matter how offensive that content is. Consequences are another thing entirely.

Your treating content and consequences separately but in my argument cause and effect go hand in hand. Now, without malice, this is what I see in her quote...

"I want to permit widespread racism in order to defend the right to free speech."

Thats why I would not vote for her. You mentioned earlier that my atheist views on this board were a result of free speech but my views don't hurt anyone. You say there is a God, I say there isn't. Thats it. What does hurt, is absolute freedom to utter racial remarks, no limits on explicit record lyrics, etc, etc... I see all of it as detrimental to a civilized society.

But anyway, no offense intended.

Bettina

Roid -

I believe you misread me, so I shall line-by-line you with yeas and nays. We'll see if that helps.

roid wrote: So you yearn for the good ol days when most people hated homosexuality (the act, lol) just like you.

Upon careful consideration, I give this a "nay". There is no historical time I can look back to with attitudes toward homosexuality that I prefer to today's. The past is characterized by ignorance and misunderstanding while the present is characterized by overzealous acceptance. However, you get a partial "yea" in that I would prefer a society that saw it as unwise. I hasten to add that I do not want to shortcut the learning process that leads to seeing it as unwise.

You liked to see homosexuals being persecuted under the law.

Nay. In fact, I made the opposite point. In spite of the fact that I think it is destructive, I prefer to live in a society where it is legal. Just like in spite of the fact that I think liberals are wrong, I prefer to live in a society where they can argue; and in spite of the fact that I think atheists are causing the nation to go to hell in a handbasket (kidding!! ), I prefer to live in a society where atheism is legal.

Where it is not too destructive, I prefer freedom to the enforcement of my own beliefs. (And, upon self-reflection, I have a very high threshhold of "too destructive").

Effectively you cheer along with whatever persecution you can get away with at the time, when the mob stops you stop.

Definitely nay. I am against persecution.

Your illustration to drug laws and how most people consider them self-destructive is the same. In the future we will look back at these laws in shame. Well, except for some people who were fond of seeing drug users persecuted under the law.

If you read my post carefully, you will actually see that I am arguing against anti-drug laws. I say I want things "regulated to protect the most foolish among us", but I actually state that I prefer freedom to moral law.

[Apologies - for some reason the DBB won't take this post in one bite. Continued below.]

[Continued response to Roid]

Early on you say that Homosexuality is wrong and you think truth will win in the end.
Then later on you say it's good that Society is on the path to allow more and more Homosexuality.
The only way these 2 points go together is that you are betting that more and more homosexuality will be disasterous and in the end we'll be forced to either repent or die. Yes?

Haha! No. No, not quite.

When I say I think homosexuality is wrong and destructive, I acknowledge that I am at odds with society on this point. I am okay with that, because I believe truth will win in the end. If I am wrong, I will someday see the error of my ways and rejoin society; if society is wrong, it will someday change too. What I really mean by that is that I don't care who's right between the two of us, because I am confident that truth will win.

When I say I think it is a good thing that society allows homosexuality, I don't say it because I think that will be destructive and cause society to see the error of its ways. (In fact, I actually don't don't think it will be destructive at all: it is the society I prefer). I say it because I value freedom. I think it is good that we allow people to do things we think are destructive.

You have some theorys, don't know exactly which it will be, but you have faith that something will happen and then we'll be sorry (or punished/die/goto hell whichever's in fashion). You'd like us to hurry up and get there quickly, so we can get it all outof our system and settle back into hating homosexuality en-mass like the good ol days.

Not quite, but close in some ways. I don't expect any sort of apocalypse or disaster. I do expect that decades of living with open homosexuals in our midst will teach us what they are and are not like, and what the consequences of the lifestyle are. Then we can make laws and establish social norms which are just and based on reality. And that's for the best.

But you are close to one reason I embrace freedom: freedom breeds moral wisdom. Good morals don't come from philosophizing--they come from seeing something in all its guts and glory and dealing with all the hard sights and weird lessons that come with it. Freedom leads to experience, which leads to wisdom.

Bet51987 wrote:Drakona.... I would not vote for you because IMO your ideology reveals a kind of place I don't want this to be. Never mind your real views on homosexuality but to allow freedom, at the cost of widespread racism, is disturbing and that alone causes society to be self destructive.

That's okay. Your votes are appreciated, but I am not running. I don't think I would enjoy the political pressure of even being a corporate executive or university professor. I am too attached to being able to say what I think. I imagine that I would have a very short and self-destructive political career.

Interviewer: "Ah, Senator Darrow, What do you think about economic topic X?"

Me: <Long rambling enlightening answer>

Interviewer: "Ah, very good. What do you think about fairness in society?"

Me: "Oh, I don't think we have a moral imperative to be fair. In fact, in a lot of circumstance, I think fairness is evil."

Interviewer: *Stunned silence*

Newspaper headline the next day: SENATOR DARROW IN FAVOR OF MORE PLAYGROUND BULLIES

Bettina wrote:Now, without malice, this is what I see in her quote...

"I want to permit widespread racism in order to defend the right to free speech."

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Understand, I don't believe racism is a good thing (though I also think it's overrated as an evil thing--it's mostly just a stupid thing).

But you can't have everything you want, and the measure of how much you value something is what you're willing to pay for it. What would I be willing to pay for freedom of speech?

Am I willing to allow cults to destroy people's lives? On consideration, yes, freedom of speech is worth that to me. Am I willing to allow large pieces of society to argue for and believe in something I think is evil--say, racism? On consideration, yes--freedom of speech is worth that to me!

And I'll tell you why: because as long as we can argue freely, truth can win. I believe wholeheartedly that a society that upholds freedom of speech, that upholds the ability to say anything, and that forces truth to defend itself in the open arena . . . is a society that will eventually embrace truth.

Now, I'm aware that's naive. Stupid memes and misinformation and masses and all that. Nonetheless, I believe in the principle, and I think the exceptions can be fixed.

And it's worth a lot to me. Freedom of speech is, historically speaking, worth an awful lot of blood and oppression in my eyes.

thx Drak that did clear up your past post a a lot.

the only thing that's confusing me now is why you typed this:

Do I think it [homosexuality] should be illegal? Not in the present environment. I don't think it's wrong that it was in the past, though.

(...then talk of common consent...)

why the \"it wasn't wrong in the past\" disclaimer? That's really confusing me, it seems to be an unnessesary loophole to your professed \"no prosecution\" values.

Why wasn't it wrong in the past? The only thing i can think of (short of you explaining it) is that your justification for persecution is tied in with common consent - ie: persecution is ok if it's alligned with common consent. ie: Go along with the Mob.
So why was persecution not wrong to you in the past, but is wrong now?

roid wrote:Human Society continues to progress. Societys come and go, the next societys build on the last.

In which case, you would have to considered the dark ages to be an improvement? Societies move forward and backwards with the only consistent point being that forward movement is usually followed by backwards movement. Your focus here seems to be primarily on homosexuality. So let's use that one as an example. Can you show me a consistent "forward" trend over several thousand years?

As I said before, in ancient Greece homosexuality was more than just accepted, it was almost venerated. Greece was followed by Rome. In Rome, attitudes towards homosexuality varied as the empire grew, but it never achieved the same level of reverence that it did in Greece, was illegal at times and places, and when allowed was usually considered only acceptable for the dominate partner. After the breakup of the Roman empire, the society completed the 180 and started executing homosexuals again. And that period lasted for a very long time.

You can show "progress" if you look at a very small portion of the graph. Take a step back and you can see that the whole thing is very chaotic.

Drakona wrote:Moral laws are justified in a democratic society when they carry common consent.

I'll have to disagree with you on this point, insofar as it applies to issues such as homosexuality. I don't feel the government ever has a right to regulate what's going on in my bedroom, just so long as I am not harming or endangering anyone else. It doesn't matter if 99% of society considers a certain behavior to be disgusting, wrong, and downright icky. If only consenting adults are involved, and no one else is hurt, and I don't have to watch, it's none of the laws business.

That is matched by the corresponding right for me to stand up and say that I think the behavior is disgusting, wrong, and downright icky. They have the right to act without me interfering. They do NOT have the right to control my opinion of their actions.

Since you have clearly stated that you prefer a society with freedom, I THINK we mostly agree on this point, but I'm with roid <shock horror!> in wondering exactly how you put together preferring freedom and approving of making homosexuality illegal in the past.

<having trouble posting long messages, same issue Drakona encountered apparently>

Bettina wrote:You mentioned earlier that my atheist views on this board were a result of free speech but my views don't hurt anyone. You say there is a God, I say there isn't. Thats it. What does hurt, is absolute freedom to utter racial remarks, no limits on explicit record lyrics, etc, etc... I see all of it as detrimental to a civilized society.

If you took a poll, you could _probably_ find a majority today who think that atheism is dangerous and harmful. You could CERTAINLY have gotten that result in the past. President George Bush Senior said: <linky>

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Now then, I STRONGLY disagree with Bush on this, but a lot of other people don't. And that is the danger you face when you start declaring certain types of speech (or even worse, ideas) as harmful even if they are not directly espousing violence. You could find the majority against you.

For another real life example, my church is VERY strongly opposed to pornography. We think it's evil and a sin. And yet, our legal department has worked WITH the pornography industry on several bits of legislation. Why would we work with someone we disagree with so strongly? Because the very same laws that make pornography illegal because of its "offensive content", can be, and ARE turned around and used against religious publications when their content is considered offensive. If a protestant church wants to express it's views on the papacy/anti-Christ connection, it WILL be offensive to large numbers of Catholics. When Catholics declare Protestantism to be heresy, it IS offensive to large numbers of Protestants.

Now Catholics and Protestants actually get along a lot of the time now, so how about we switch to a more controversial subject: Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, and Scientology. Mainstream Christian's publish papers/web pages on a regular basis declaring these organizations to be cults. Actually, they do the exact same thing to MY church frequently. There are movements in the law to make this an illegal form of "hate speech". I think that is WRONG and DANGEROUS.

<last one, I PROMISE>
If I don't protect the rights of someone to call my church a cult, I could very well end up loosing the rights for my church to state ITS opinion. Heck, Dawkins thinks that Religion in general is dangerous. He's actually called raising a child within religion \"child abuse\". I want him to have the right to SAY that, I don't want him to have the right to enforce it by LAW.

So yes, I would actually be willing to fight for the rights of white supremacist to say that all non-Aryan races are inferior. JUST SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT DIRECTLY ADVOCATE VIOLENCE. Because protecting the rights of people I find offensive (and stupid) is VITAL if I want to maintain the right to say what *I* want to about things other people find offensive.

For example, Kilarin says: \"White supremacist are dull witted morons who don't have the brain power God gave to your average chipmunk. Their family tree is more like a straight stick, and it's absolutely amazing they can reproduce without the help of a turkey baster.\"

They have the right to say what they want, I have the right to say what *I* want. That's the way it SHOULD be.

woodchip wrote:Drakona for President.

What a terrible thing to wish upon a genuinely good person!

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:Drakona for President.

What a terrible thing to wish upon a genuinely good person!

lol definitely. She doesn't have enough agenda anyways.

Duper wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

woodchip wrote:Drakona for President.

What a terrible thing to wish upon a genuinely good person!

lol definitely. She doesn't have enough agenda anyways.

The first disqualification for the office of president should be that the person actually WANTS the job.

SO, as far as I'm concerned, Drakona is still a contender.

I'm voting for Hillary.

Bee

Kilarin wrote:

roid wrote:Human Society continues to progress. Societys come and go, the next societys build on the last.

In which case, you would have to considered the dark ages to be an improvement? Societies move forward and backwards with the only consistent point being that forward movement is usually followed by backwards movement. Your focus here seems to be primarily on homosexuality. So let's use that one as an example. Can you show me a consistent "forward" trend over several thousand years?

As I said before, in ancient Greece homosexuality was more than just accepted, it was almost venerated. Greece was followed by Rome. In Rome, attitudes towards homosexuality varied as the empire grew, but it never achieved the same level of reverence that it did in Greece, was illegal at times and places, and when allowed was usually considered only acceptable for the dominate partner. After the breakup of the Roman empire, the society completed the 180 and started executing homosexuals again. And that period lasted for a very long time.

You can show "progress" if you look at a very small portion of the graph. Take a step back and you can see that the whole thing is very chaotic.

The pattern ("consistent trend") i see in it is that the whole process is getting better and better at management of large numbers of people, and recording of information. Lots of experiments throughout history, Sometimes people are very free, othertimes it's very controlled, we all learn from it. As time goes on the whole lesson seems to be that more and more freedom is the more effective way to manage a lot of people. But maybe that's coz i was born in the post-60s era.

Ironicly i feel that this is a lesson we've already learned. I see Christians still waiting for the climax of their preached lesson, they wait for the validation to all of their inflicted suffering, where they can finally say "told ya so". They are so wrapped up in this they are blind to the lessons being learned by the rest of us - that freedom is good, and it works.

We are in the information age.
Information is key to progress. Learning. We are in the most learned time in human history, every generation of children knows more and more than the last did. Pop-culture does it's job simmering it all down into easier and easier lessons to learn at earlier and earlier ages. The whole process allows us to take profound wisdoms more and more for granted - as they become nothing more than common sense.

This is why i say we are the most progressed so far, and we'll only get better.
Other groups throughout history have had freedoms, some moreso than ours, but none of them have had it on our near global scales.
Our progress from familys living in caves, then Tribes. The introduction of farming, which then birthed writing. Chiefdoms, then States. Now we're almost an interlinked global culture - a whole planet.

We're building towards sustainability too, social as well as industrial. Eagerness to reach social sustainability is behind a lot of the progress we've made on social matters like mentioned in the OP.

roid wrote:Christians still waiting for the climax of their preached lesson, they wait for the validation to all of their inflicted suffering, where they can finally say "told ya so".

We certainly are waiting for the climax, but it's not to validate suffering, but to eliminate it. And you seem to be aiming this primarily at the developed world, which is largely Christian. Now it's true that there is lot's of suffering in the developed world, but the majority of it is not because of persecution of Christians. It's the general suffering that comes to mankind. If you want "Suffering Christians" you can certainly find them, but it's in Darfur, the Middle East, and other portions of the world that are NOT primarily Christian. Which brings us to:

roid wrote:They are so wrapped up in this they are blind to the lessons being learned by the rest of us - that freedom is good, and it works.

I'm not denying that there is some truth in this. There is certainly an element among Christians who would love to legislate their religion onto everyone else. BUT, an interesting thing to notice. WHERE in the world do we find the most freedom? Where in the world are you closest to being free to be a Christian, Hindu, Moslem, or Atheist? In what parts of the world do you have the most freedom to disagree with the government, out loud? It's clearly in the western world, which just happens to have been founded largely by Christians. The Christian culture has certainly had it's oppressive periods, and may have more. But in the last 2000 years, the culture that grew up with Christianity as it's backbone seems to be the one that has come closest to freedom. I'm not certain I could prove cause and effect there, but it's a very interesting fact.

roid wrote:We are in the most learned time in human history, every generation of children knows more and more than the last did. Pop-culture does it's job simmering it all down into easier and easier lessons to learn at earlier and earlier ages.

An educated child in the 1800's probably spoke and read several languages. They had a grasp of history, literature, and science. They could certainly read. Were civilization to fall apart, two or three survivors would have been able to reproduce much of their current technology.

Today? We have CERTAINLY expanded what knowledge we have as a group. And we HAVE expanded the base of who is educated. But the education they are getting is... well, pitiful. At least in the US. A significant portion of graduates can't read. Their scientific education is often completely inadequate. They don't understand geography, history, OR literature.
And, they most definitely do NOT understand technology. Yes, they know how to USE it, no doubt, but if you dropped 20 randomly chosen people onto a deserted island, how much would they be able to rebuild? Or even record? We don't understand what makes computers work. We don't understand how our cars run, or how the refrigerator cools our food. And without those bits of knowledge, we would be completely helpless, not only to reproduce the technology, but even to create a subsistence level civilization without the support of society to build it.

I think Pop-culture does a LOUSY job of educating.

roid wrote:We're building towards sustainability too, social as well as industrial. Eagerness to reach social sustainability is behind a lot of the progress we've made on social matters like mentioned in the OP.

Industrial? Well, I'll grant that perhaps we are working towards sustainability, but we are a very long way from it. Western civilization is consuming resources like mad. But for social? I'm definitely of the opposite opinion. I think western society is rapidly self destructing. And no, I don't think it's because homosexuals can get married in some states.

Lothar wrote:
People voted for Bush hoping for many things:
- smaller government (oops!)
- Supreme Court justices who actually respect the law and the system (see my Roe v Wade post and followup -- the USSC is supposed to interpret laws, not invent them)
- laws regarding certain moral situations (including gay marriage, but not limited to it.) So yeah, some of the "God hates fags" people probably voted for Bush.
- (the second election) aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically, a commitment to keep fighting against the jihadis in Iraq

Don't forget the famous quote:

"I don't believe in nation building"

Birdseye wrote:

Lothar wrote:
People voted for Bush hoping for many things:
- smaller government (oops!)
- Supreme Court justices who actually respect the law and the system (see my Roe v Wade post and followup -- the USSC is supposed to interpret laws, not invent them)
- laws regarding certain moral situations (including gay marriage, but not limited to it.) So yeah, some of the "God hates fags" people probably voted for Bush.
- (the second election) aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically, a commitment to keep fighting against the jihadis in Iraq

Don't forget the famous quote:

"I don't believe in nation building"

Was that before or after 9/11 Bird?

Birdseye wrote:"I don't believe in nation building"

For your amusement...

Daily show, Pres Bush vs Gov Bush

Daily show, Current Pres Bush vs First Term Pres Bush

sorry i havn't replied yet Kilarin. To answer your question i'd have to simmer down the book \"Guns, Germs and Steel\" into one post.

it's not because Christianity is awesome, it's because Christians were in the better position to win wars over their enemys, this includes the included dogma to spread the word which fueled colonialism.

It's very interesting, but hell it's a big explanation. i can expand if you want

roid wrote:it's not because Christianity is awesome, it's because Christians were in the better position to win wars over their enemys, this includes the included dogma to spread the word which fueled colonialism.

It's very interesting, but hell it's a big explanation. i can expand if you want

I'm going to have a hard time buying that Christian nations being in a "better position" was unrelated to their belief systems.

Also, the Huns and the Turks were, obviously, well positioned to take over at various periods.

But my argument wasn't that Christianity produced superior armies and conquered more territory. It was that Christian based nations have produced the countries with the most freedom.

So yeah, explain your position here. But I'm going to be out of touch for a while here, so there is no rush.

i'm bumping my old thread, coz it's still relevant and awesome, and i still want people to answer the topic (don't mind that it's 3 pages long, feel free to just answer the OP if you want).
And i'm referring to it in another post in the \"Government By Lottery\" thread, on the topic of how-to change culture - howto PROGRESS culture. Coz i think it's a good example of how culture (our culture anyway) always progresses - always to the chorus of wailings of the social conservatives of the day.

- Rights for blacks, right to vote, interracial Marriage, and just general doing away of racial oppressions.
- Gay rights, the doing away of anti-homosexuality laws (in MOST states, lawl), the recognition of and prosecuting of homosexual targeted hate crime, finally gay marriage (in some places).
- Women's rights, women comming outof the kitchen and into ... everywhere else (the workplace, politics BEYOND \"sappy women's issues\" such as education and health). Paid maternity leave.
- Anyone want to add?

Social Conservatives were there holding us back, every step of the way. Biggots Biggots Biggots.
Oh but we arn't like THAT anymore are we... you bunch of flip-floppers - are you Conservatives or not? Conservatives arn't flip-floppers - coz that would make you... PROGRESSIVE. EEK

Lets see here... what are the current Social Conservative issues? Oh look they have different issues, but they look just like the conservatives from decades ago - getting in the way of social progress for the same old reasons: \"waaaaah it's new and different, lets keep things the same, i'm doing fine as things are\".
And in decades to come we'll be looking back, the conservative's issues of today will be as disgusting to us in the future as the past bans on interracial marriage are to us now. Even the social conservatives of tomorrow will look back at us NOW, and they'll say:
Biggots Biggots Biggots.

I think your original post is built upon a false premise and shows your own prejudice toward conservatives the way you followed it with tons of stereotyping and straw man building...

Here is your original list of ways we have supposedly drifted away from conservatism:

1)Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal.
2)The role of women in society was incredibly limited.
3)People had less qualms about sentencing ppl to death.
4)People didn't give a ***** about the environment.

1) I believe the laws changed slowly because to be a law maker you had to win the vote of the average person and everyone both liberal and conservative used to publicly denounce homosexuality so it was hard for any lawmaker to risk his job to suggest change so the shift on that issue wasn't a victory of the liberals over the conservatives it was an evolution of the whole culture.

2) Same as above, it was never a politically divided opinion on the role of women it was very much a bipartisan opinion. Your anti-conservative bias led you down the road of false assumptions once again!

3) I don't think the publics stance on capital punishment has moved steadily from one side to the other it seems to have been cyclical. Feel free to ascribe the parts of the cycle that support your theories to your political opponents though if that is the role you want to assume...

4) I think peoples awareness of their impact on the environment has steadily become stronger as their impact has become more evident and their actions to deal with that impact parallels their awareness.
What you should have said is, in the last few decades the issue of environmentalism has become a more useful tool for liberals to demagogue so, yes, some people are much more aggressive in their professed concern...why they even falsify recorded data to prop up their politically charged rhetoric that gives many lefty's that same feeling a bunch of short skirted cheerleaders give the varsity football team at a pep rally. Doesn't prove your theory to be true though.

The truth is Americans, all of us regardless of voter registration, are both liberal and conservative. Usually socially liberal but fiscally conservative in nature because we are compassionate but practical in the way we live our daily lives.

Have you ever been to America and lived among us?

It’s not that conservatives don’t want to change, it’s that conservatives want to change slowly, and want the correct kind of change.

Again I see your history has failed you.

The greatest conservationest ever was Teddy, he started the national parks, and Nixon passed a lot of civil rights law. Etc.

Will Robinson wrote:I think your original post is built upon a false premise and shows your own prejudice toward conservatives the way you followed it with tons of stereotyping and straw man building...

Here is your original list of ways we have supposedly drifted away from conservatism:

1)Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal.
2)The role of women in society was incredibly limited.
3)People had less qualms about sentencing ppl to death.
4)People didn't give a ***** about the environment.

1) I believe the laws changed slowly because to be a law maker you had to win the vote of the average person and everyone both liberal and conservative used to publicly denounce homosexuality so it was hard for any lawmaker to risk his job to suggest change so the shift on that issue wasn't a victory of the liberals over the conservatives it was an evolution of the whole culture.

yes, the evolution of the whole culture towards Progressive ideals - and away from the wants of the Social Conservatives.

2) Same as above, it was never a politically divided opinion on the role of women it was very much a bipartisan opinion. Your anti-conservative bias led you down the road of false assumptions once again!

are you saying the bipartisan opinion was that womens' role should be kept as it is, or rolled up even tighter (Conservative philosophy), or was that bipartisan opinion that womens' role in society should be progressed (progressive/liberal philosophy)?


you seem to be talking about social conservatives as if they are a political party in and of themselves, whom can be historically tracked by tracing the issue-history of that party (ie: Republicans). That's not what i'm saying.


Social Conservatives are those who oppose social and cultural change. Since there are so many changes that could happen, in either direction, to be against any single respective change may make you "socially conservative" on that issue. I don't want America's consititution CHANGED (or do you call that an ammentment) so that homosexual marriage is MADE illegal - so in that regard even i can be said to be a social conservative.

However, all changes that "card carrying" Social Conservatives want to make, are generally considered by them to be changes to bring things BACK towards where they WERE some time AGO. So they are not so much new changes, as they are just repealing old changes we already made to progress society. Winding back the clock so to speak.

The truth is Americans, all of us regardless of voter registration, are both liberal and conservative. Usually socially liberal but fiscally conservative in nature because we are compassionate but practical in the way we live our daily lives.

Have you ever been to America and lived among us?

So - you're saying that most Americans are Socially Liberal? Are you also saying they are Socially Progressive?

You don't need to single out America - i have social conservatives a-plenty in my OWN country. They seem little different to the ones in your country that i meet online and see on my TV (but mostly the internet of course, TVs are hard to trust).
This is not a thread about America - it's a thread about Social Conservatives. They are prettymuch the same everywhere.

The proper opposite to Conservative is Progressive. I don't use the word Liberal. Liberal is the opposite of Authoritarian. In Australia the so named "Liberal Party" is actually our version of your Republicans - they are considered the social conservatives. Tthe name means nothing.
I'm not talking parties here, nor countries. I'm talking political philosophies.

Spidey wrote:It’s not that conservatives don’t want to change, it’s that conservatives want to change slowly, and want the correct kind of change.

Again I see your history has failed you.

The greatest conservationest ever was Teddy, he started the national parks, and Nixon passed a lot of civil rights law. Etc.

A part of the Social Conservative camp wants things to go BACKWARDS. Back to "better times" as they call them.
These are the loudest social conservatives, and i hardly see the "slow change" conservatives trying to shut them up or distance themselves from them. Can they even be told apart?
They are the same camp as far as i've been concerned. Unless here either a "slow change" social conservative, or a "go back" social conservative wants to distance themselves from the other in this thread? Any takers?

I find it hard to believe that a conservative will actually tell me "oh... the amount of rights that Gays have right now are good. No more, no less". I'm not sure i've ever heard that before. Mostly what i hear is various flavours of "we need to go back".
It ranges the gammut of gays should not be allowed to adopt, have families, and/or marry, or just free to be appropriately fabulous in public or on the media (All of which are CURRENT rights enjoyed in various respective places).
To the more extreme backwards types saying that gays should be punished, locked up, beaten, strung up in trees (yeeeehaw).
Is any social conservative actually happy and comfortable with the rights gays currently have? no more, no less? I could find something that makes you uncomfortable, guarenteed.

Get a new rant, you are refering to a small minority.

get outof my thread if all you have is useless insults.

Show me it's a small minority

Sorry Roid but your thread has debased itself to a \"Gays do not have rights so conservatives are bad\".
Gays have every right under the constitution that everyone else has. Unfortunately adopting kids and same sex marriages are not constitutionally granted.

roid, Spidey... come on, take your quarrels to PM or something.

--------

Back on topic, roid is right that there is a definite \"we need to go back to _______ values\" movement among conservatives. (I see it most often back at home, especially among \"conservative Christians\".)

Is this a good thing?

In my personal opinion, yes and no.

- Yes, in cases where the conservative culture has crossed a line and needs to return to its basics (e.g. fiscal policy, balanced budget).

- No, in cases where \"going back\" implies returning to policies which are socially exclusive and/or continue to marginalize a particular group (e.g. treatment of non-citizens, the poor, etc.)

-----------

What bothers me is that in a number of the cases where I've heard people espousing the movement, it has been from someone who is expressing a belief that \"those _______s (usually latinos or gays or homeless, or some other 'outsider') don't deserve human rights / civil rights / etc.\" So pardon me if my reaction to the movement is somewhat negative, despite the fact that I hold some conservative views.

The only things we need to go back to is

A nuclear family structure that's not broken up by gargantuanly oppressive taxes. Where one parent can make enough money so that the other can be home to monitor the children at all times while they are growing up.

A corporate landscape where the government is in control of the corporations, not the other way around. Where companies are encouraged to prosper in THIS country, not taxed so heavily that they close up shop and move OUT of the country. Heavier tariffs placed on foreign goods and outright embargo (wrong word?) on these cheap, environmentally dangerous and deadly products from ★■◆● holes like China.

Repeal of the Fed Reserve act.

Isolationist foreign policy.

These few things would make this country what it once was. Until then, this country is ★■◆●, and will remain ★■◆●.

roid you have a bad habit of taking anecdotal evidence and random bits of partisan rhetoric and assigning it to large groups of people as if it was empirical evidence representing the groups as a a whole.

As long as you make those kind of assumptions the discussion is fruitless!

An example of your false premise:

are you saying the bipartisan opinion was that womens' role should be kept as it is, or rolled up even tighter (Conservative philosophy)

Where do you get the data to support your assertion that conservatives want to 'roll up the womans role even tighter' ?!? where did you learn about this \"conservative philosophy\"?
When you talk about \"conservatives\" are you talking about groups like the Taliban? Maybe I made the mistake of assuming you are talking about what we Americans call conservatives.

No, you are making a false assumption, you prove it.

See, this is one of the reasons I refer to you as a “pseudo intellectual”, its not because you are not smart, it’s because you have no intellectual training.

Example:
You made an argument, I countered your argument with a valid point, did you choose to see my point, and make one of your own, no you decided to change your argument instead. (and then get all pissy)

And you have a lot of nerve complaining about useless insults…you hypocrit!

roid, Spidey...

If you're going to continue the discussion, please do so without taking shots at each other.

Foil wrote:Is this a good thing? In my personal opinion, yes and no.

Exactly.
Change is not good in and of itself. Change is good when it is replacing something bad with something better. Change is bad when it is replacing something good with something worse.

So of you define "conservative" as "resisting change" and "progressive" as "promoting change", then both camps will sometimes be right and sometimes be wrong.

Promoting OR resisting change, just for it's own sake, is a silly philosophy. We need to judge each change individually.

Diseases are progressive too...