Yes. Lol
Yes. Lol
This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
1. Modern consumerist culture is often hollow and lacking in humanity, using people as economic animals to manipulate instead of human beings. There's a loving thread of social conservatism that will fight modern consumerism to its dying day, and I respect that thread will all my heart.
2. One strand of that loving conservatism a religious one that emphasizes family, kindness, community, alms as contradictions to Madison Avenue's manipulations and Hollywood's stream of literally soulless crap.
3. There is a strength, very similar to Stoicism or the Way of the Mustache, that occurs when a person or family or community establishes self-reliance through thrift and work. There is a further strength when that self-reliance multiplies into wealth through wise investment. Anything that interferes with this developmental process hinders the full development of a person. If you recognize that some people have a lazy tendency, the opportunity to avoid this developmental process by relying on social benefits is bad, hence social benefit systems can have a negative effect.
4. If UBI existed, I'd be a good example of point 3.
5. Personal opinion here: there's something deep about sex. Modern consumerist culture ignores that, cheapens relationships, and worst of all leaves young people adrift in a sea of temptation without giving them the grounding to maintain a wise moderation in sexual matters.
6. Arguably in its rush to maximize individual rights, secular society detracts from the solid enduring relationships that most naturally form around a sexual connection.
7. Relationships are hard. Traditional forms such as marriage push people to overcome the difficulty, harvesting an enduring peace, strength and wisdom after persisting. Thoughtless sexual flings and overly easy divorces prompt people to avoid the hard work that leads to the deepest and most fulfilling relationships.
Not even married myself here, just offering thoughts that I suspect. It appears to me that many social conservatives would agree with these. If so, maybe there's some good in the socially conservative movement. I've certainly known social conservatives who led excellent lives and treated many people well.
Re goals, the conservatives I've known sought to have quality relationships, a society where individuals had satisfying roles to play in a harmonious society, and to fulfill God's will. As an atheist, I acknowledge that the final motivation I listed won't seem valid to a fellow atheist, but if you want to honestly understand social conservatives, you'd be a fool to ignore it. Especially since historically, belief in God motivated many people to fight against slavery, for democracy, sometimes even for freedom of religion.
No, social conservatives are not always wrong.
I'm mostly trying to avoid obviously provocative threads, but I will offer a Devil's Advocate view or two here. I can't speak for any whole conservative movement, just offering a couple of personal views & experiences. Fwiw, I'm mostly liberal, but find the topic just as offensive as the anti-liberal libertarian screeds and don't-use-ACA-it's-supposed-to-be-a-handout vitriol that pops up. Not being personal here... @GuitarStv's jokes are often some of the forum's funniest.
1. Modern consumerist culture is often hollow and lacking in humanity, using people as economic animals to manipulate instead of human beings. There's a loving thread of social conservatism that will fight modern consumerism to its dying day, and I respect that thread will all my heart. I haven't seen much of this thread of social conservatism any time in recent memory. See "prosperity gospel" above, and its seeming stranglehold on American conservatism.
2. One strand of that loving conservatism a religious one that emphasizes family, kindness, community, alms as contradictions to Madison Avenue's manipulations and Hollywood's stream of literally soulless crap. One particular kind of family (heterosexual, uniracial, uni-religious), that is. And some pretty severe limits to their beliefs on who deserves kindness, who deserves to be included in community. (And again here, I am sensing an unstated but nevertheless present dichotomy between this so-called kind, loving conservatism and a debauched, soulless Hollywood that I guess is supposed to be a stand-in for liberalism? I know you say you're mostly liberal. But I think your nostalgia for a particular Rockwell-sepia-toned conservatism is maybe a little misplaced?)
3. There is a strength, very similar to Stoicism or the Way of the Mustache, that occurs when a person or family or community establishes self-reliance through thrift and work. There is a further strength when that self-reliance multiplies into wealth through wise investment. Anything that interferes with this developmental process hinders the full development of a person. If you recognize that some people have a lazy tendency, the opportunity to avoid this developmental process by relying on social benefits is bad, hence social benefit systems can have a negative effect.
Sure. I was raised protestant. And I recognize the pull of that work ethic. I am very culturally protestant in that way, too. But I also recognize how easily and quickly the fetishization of "self-reliance" and bootstrap-ism can turn into bigotry when that gaze is turned upon "others" whom we evaluate as "lazy" -- it's a great argument for not helping other people -- a very lack of the principles of kindness, compassion, and community you extolled above.
4. If UBI existed, I'd be a good example of point 3.
5. Personal opinion here: there's something deep about sex. Modern consumerist culture ignores that, cheapens relationships, and worst of all leaves young people adrift in a sea of temptation without giving them the grounding to maintain a wise moderation in sexual matters.
I agree with this in many ways. But I'm still not convinced that social conservatism is the answer, because it tends to only want/nurture/accept certain kinds of sex, and certain kinds of relationships. So I find a hypocrisy there. Also: recent studies suggest that millennials and Generation Z are not only decidedly more liberal than previous generations, but also having sex later and having fewer partners than Boomers and Gen Xers.
6. Arguably in its rush to maximize individual rights, secular society detracts from the solid enduring relationships that most naturally form around a sexual connection.
I'm going to mostly back away from this. The one thing I will say is that as a woman, I personally am very, very glad that I was raised in a society that didn't push me early on into marriage, as women of previous generations in my family have told me their marriages -- which prioritized their commitment to starting and raising a family instead of their individual desires -- also led them to push away their individual dreams because they were expected to care more about becoming wives and mothers than they were anything else. And their husbands, they felt, did not suffer the same limitations as a result of marriage.
7. Relationships are hard. Traditional forms such as marriage push people to overcome the difficulty, harvesting an enduring peace, strength and wisdom after persisting. Thoughtless sexual flings and overly easy divorces prompt people to avoid the hard work that leads to the deepest and most fulfilling relationships.
And yet, divorce rates are higher in red states. Which has always puzzled me.
Not even married myself here, just offering thoughts that I suspect. It appears to me that many social conservatives would agree with these. If so, maybe there's some good in the socially conservative movement. I've certainly known social conservatives who led excellent lives and treated many people well.
Re goals, the conservatives I've known sought to have quality relationships, a society where individuals had satisfying roles to play in a harmonious society, and to fulfill God's will. As an atheist, I acknowledge that the final motivation I listed won't seem valid to a fellow atheist, but if you want to honestly understand social conservatives, you'd be a fool to ignore it. Especially since historically, belief in God motivated many people to fight against slavery, for democracy, sometimes even for freedom of religion.
And also, motivated many people to fight for slavery, against democracy, and against freedom of religion, precisely in the name of their own personal god. Honestly, religion is not equal to conservatism. It was, generally speaking, the more liberal congregations/religious associations that fought for these freedoms, historically.
I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . . slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc?
I still have hope that we can some day engage with each other with empathy, embracing what others have to bring to the table even if we don't agree, accepting that we need checks and balances to both conservatism and progress.
That's going to be a hard sell to social conservatives, who base their entire belief system on the foundational understanding that other people are less deserving than they are because they don't embrace their grandparent's mores. How do you ask someone to extend empathy when he's arguing to deny his opponent basic human rights?
2. One strand of that loving conservatism a religious one that emphasizes family, kindness, community, alms as contradictions to Madison Avenue's manipulations and Hollywood's stream of literally soulless crap. One particular kind of family (heterosexual, uniracial, uni-religious), that is. And some pretty severe limits to their beliefs on who deserves kindness, who deserves to be included in community. (And again here, I am sensing an unstated but nevertheless present dichotomy between this so-called kind, loving conservatism and a debauched, soulless Hollywood that I guess is supposed to be a stand-in for liberalism? I know you say you're mostly liberal. But I think your nostalgia for a particular Rockwell-sepia-toned conservatism is maybe a little misplaced?)
Huh.
Thank you! You're thinking about what I wrote, not reacting in attack mode. Thank you!!!! :)
(I often see you very thoughtful elsewhere in the forums. Just happy in this thread that people are pondering rather than attacking for their "side".)
I mean, I can sort of see a few of your points here? But I also kind of think many of them make a false equivalency between conservatism and anti-capitalism.
Based on the conservatives I have known personally in multiple states and contexts, there are huge numbers of social conservatives who are lukewarm at best about capitalism, and quite a few who agree with some anti-capitalist positions.
If I were trying to claim that all convervatives think like this, I agree it would be a false equivalency. But I'm not claiming that. As I mentioned to GuitarStv, my post is simply a response to the thread title's question "Are social conservatives always wrong?" Some of them are not wrong sometimes. That's enough to answer "no" to the title.
Putting the above paragraph another way, I'm not trying to prove social conservatives are always right. What I really want is peace, love and understanding. We probably need to start with the understanding that some social conservatives have legitimate reasons for espousing conservative views. I gave examples based on people who I personally know, like and respect.
Yes. Lol
This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
Yes. Lol
This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
Yes, this isn't the best place to discuss these things. I come here to discuss early retirement.
Yes. Lol
This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
Yes, this isn't the best place to discuss these things. I come here to discuss early retirement.
I think there’s a disconnect because the title of this thread is asking whether conservatives are “always wrong” but the OP asks a different question... which is, do conservatives always lose in the end?
I ask that question, and to me it means, are conservatives always on the wrong side of history?
5. Personal opinion here: there's something deep about sex. Modern consumerist culture ignores that, cheapens relationships, and worst of all leaves young people adrift in a sea of temptation without giving them the grounding to maintain a wise moderation in sexual matters.
I agree with this in many ways. But I'm still not convinced that social conservatism is the answer, because it tends to only want/nurture/accept certain kinds of sex, and certain kinds of relationships. So I find a hypocrisy there.
6. Arguably in its rush to maximize individual rights, secular society detracts from the solid enduring relationships that most naturally form around a sexual connection.
I'm going to mostly back away from this. The one thing I will say is that as a woman, I personally am very, very glad that I was raised in a society that didn't push me early on into marriage, as women of previous generations in my family have told me their marriages -- which prioritized their commitment to starting and raising a family instead of their individual desires -- also led them to push away their individual dreams because they were expected to care more about becoming wives and mothers than they were anything else. And their husbands, they felt, did not suffer the same limitations as a result of marriage.
My post is in response to the thread title "Are social conservatives always wrong." I offered examples in which, from my viewpoint, it would be incorrect to claim that "social conservatives are always wrong."
You can argue all you want if your goal in this thread is a special space to vent your personal diatribe against every detail of every policy supported by the people you label social conservatives, while excluding every good act or thought by conservatives on the ground that you don't want to include them as "social conservatives." That's not an argument I'm interested in having. I just feel that endless vituperative attacks on people who disagree is part of the problem our society has right now, and seeing the points where there is humanity on the other side is a useful path towards a healthier society. I have done my part to increase understanding. You can ignore it if you like.
I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . . slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc?
If you define "social conservatives" as those in opposition only to everything you agree with, and vice versa, then by definition they are always wrong. But is that a meaningful designation? I honestly don't know what the definition is these days.
When I was a kid it was mainly conservative churches (e.g. filled with social conservatives) that were opposed to smoking and drinking. We now know how bad smoking is and how many millions it has killed. And we also now know that alcohol is a carcinogen and also responsible for the death of many millions, along with many other social problems. I'm not a teetotaler, my only objection to alcohol is the culture we've created around it. And I enjoy a pipe/cigar from time to time. But there's no denying that these are unhealthy.
Those who are conservative (socially or otherwise) tend to be skeptical of change. Yes, this can express itself in malignant ways. But so too can unbridled optimism in the name of progress. I long for the day when issues can be discussed on their merits, without first pigeonholing people into one category or another, and without each "side" staking out whichever ideological hill they chose to die on. Maybe this is naive on my part, but I still have hope that we can some day engage with each other with empathy, embracing what others have to bring to the table even if we don't agree, accepting that we need checks and balances to both conservatism and progress.
Interesting and related: https://quillette.com/2019/06/06/the-fallacy-of-techno-optimism/
My post is in response to the thread title "Are social conservatives always wrong." I offered examples in which, from my viewpoint, it would be incorrect to claim that "social conservatives are always wrong."
Right. And then I brought examples of social conservatism that don't really jive with what you were saying, or examples of where you appeared to be conflating social conservatism with fiscal conservatism. Stating a case, building evidence, and making arguments to support one cause or the other is generally how a debate goes.
Please don't lump fiscal conservatives together with social conservatives. Doing so is a mistake. Although there can be overlap, they're not the same at all.
I have no issue with fiscal conservative because although I generally disagree with the theories I have had enough explained of it to see that there does exist a logical framework of reasoning behind it. The same has never really happened for me with social conservatism. It doesn't make sense to me, and what I see ends up seeming pretty distasteful most of the time. Hence my question.
What would you say the top defining issues for social conservatives in the United States today are?
To me at the moment they kinda appear to be (in no particular order):
- Anti-homosexuality
- Anti-sex ed
- Anti-theory of evolution
- Anti-abortion
- Anti-religion (other religions than what the social conservative believes)
- Pro-religion (but only the personal interpretation of the religion or a small tight knit group of religions that the social conservative believes are acceptable)
- Anti-transgender
- Anti-racial equality
Those are all pretty awful. So what are the "good" hot button issues that social conservatives get worked up about . . . the ones that I can cheer for too?
You mentioned that being against smoking and drinking is a good thing. But the anti-drinking manifested in prohibition . . . which was a total disaster. The war on drugs currently underway is maybe an important issue to social conservatives . . . but appears to be a total failure as well. It's almost like forcing people to do what you think is good doesn't work very well.
I think there’s a disconnect because the title of this thread is asking whether conservatives are “always wrong” but the OP asks a different question... which is, do conservatives always lose in the end?
I ask that question, and to me it means, are conservatives always on the wrong side of history?
Mmm, the question from the original post and your restatement of it are good questions.
I don't have a definitive answer of course, but I have an opinion. Roughly:
1. The conservatives listed in the OP from history were generally wrong, I agree.
2. I disagree with conservatives on the current issues listed, so... well, I have my hopes.
3. Always is a high bar, and conservatives are more likely to be right on issues excluded than included.
4. Often, conservatives are thinking of something that's true, but a policy that takes something too far looks bad later.
5. Much later, an approach better than either side emerges, and it includes some truth from the conservative view as well as the liberal.
6. On policy questions, I trust the Society of Friends Service Committee more than just about anyone
7. Society of Friends' Committee on National Legislation isn't bad either
8. Anybody can make mistakes
9. We're all in this together, understanding is better than attacks
One example is drug policy. Jailing drug users en masse is probably bad, frowning at them maybe bad too. But there was a time when the liberal position appeared to be "free drugs, free love, tell the man to f--- off is the way to the heaven on earth" and it's not. Some discretion is advisable. Some prompts from society to balance out the gap between "feels great right now" and "is very wise twenty years later" is probably good.
Makes me think of the video a friend sent me today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw
I happen to be pro evolution, but against the notion that "evolution disproves your scriptures" (yes, I've encountered this personally), which is essentially a form of cultural imperialism.
I happen to be pro evolution, but against the notion that "evolution disproves your scriptures" (yes, I've encountered this personally), which is essentially a form of cultural imperialism.
I'm not sure that cultural imperialism is an accurate description of paleontology, but whatever you need to tell yourself is fine with me.
Evolution isn't culture, it's science. Geochronology is not religion. There is no conquest involved in publishing established fact. If an ancient scroll says the world was created in six days, it is factually incorrect. It can still be a beautiful story worth sharing for other reasons, but not because it is true.
I think there’s a disconnect because the title of this thread is asking whether conservatives are “always wrong” but the OP asks a different question... which is, do conservatives always lose in the end?
I ask that question, and to me it means, are conservatives always on the wrong side of history?
Mmm, the question from the original post and your restatement of it are good questions.
I don't have a definitive answer of course, but I have an opinion. Roughly:
1. The conservatives listed in the OP from history were generally wrong, I agree.
2. I disagree with conservatives on the current issues listed, so... well, I have my hopes.
3. Always is a high bar, and conservatives are more likely to be right on issues excluded than included.
4. Often, conservatives are thinking of something that's true, but a policy that takes something too far looks bad later.
5. Much later, an approach better than either side emerges, and it includes some truth from the conservative view as well as the liberal.
6. On policy questions, I trust the Society of Friends Service Committee more than just about anyone
7. Society of Friends' Committee on National Legislation isn't bad either
8. Anybody can make mistakes
9. We're all in this together, understanding is better than attacks
One example is drug policy. Jailing drug users en masse is probably bad, frowning at them maybe bad too. But there was a time when the liberal position appeared to be "free drugs, free love, tell the man to f--- off is the way to the heaven on earth" and it's not. Some discretion is advisable. Some prompts from society to balance out the gap between "feels great right now" and "is very wise twenty years later" is probably good.
Makes me think of the video a friend sent me today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw
The Society of Friends is hardly conservative in any way whatsoever -- so if that's what you have in mind as representatives of "social conservatism", I'm pretty sure this discussion is not based on the same foundational assumptions. I suspect it's likely that a random southern evangelical wouldn't even recognize a Friend as being a good enough Christian to count. (I need a smiley face emoji here, or some other way to communicate goodwill.)
I like to think of Quakers as "disorganized religion", to differentiate them from the "organized religion" kind. (I'm developing a strong antipathy for "organized religion" as I get older...based on current events.) But my family background is Hicksite, so that might explain a few of my biases...
I know a few other retro-hippies who are anti-consumerism and pro-do-shit-yourself, and devoted to social justice and working for good causes. Possibly because I live in Hippistan, they're pretty much all liberal, and of varying degrees of (liberal) religiosity. So, although I associate "social conservatives" with members of Evangelical mega-churches, I have warm fuzzier for some of the more liberal churchgoers who are out there making the world a genuinely better place.
Anyhow, my answer to the original question is "no..." for some of the reasons @BicycleB enumerated: there's an antipathy to the giant push toward consumerism and treating people as nothing but consumers that I have in common with some older (somewhat) conservatives I've met. Unfortunately, it frequently comes packaged with assuming people should fit into little traditional boxes that are BS.
Imposing Western positivism on ancient cultures and thereby declaring their written and/or oral tradition false is cultural imperialism.
I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . . slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc.
Despite the furor, social conservatives historically always lose in the end . . . but often they manage to cause a lot of pain and suffering before they finally do capitulate. So what exactly is the draw to the movement? What are it's long term goals?
To me at the moment they kinda appear to be (in no particular order):
- Anti-homosexuality
- Anti-sex ed
- Anti-theory of evolution
- Anti-abortion
- Anti-religion (other religions than what the social conservative believes)
- Pro-religion (but only the personal interpretation of the religion or a small tight knit group of religions that the social conservative believes are acceptable)
- Anti-transgender
- Anti-racial equality
What would you say the top defining issues for social conservatives in the United States today are?
To me at the moment they kinda appear to be (in no particular order):
- Anti-homosexuality
- Anti-sex ed
- Anti-theory of evolution
- Anti-abortion
- Anti-religion (other religions than what the social conservative believes)
- Pro-religion (but only the personal interpretation of the religion or a small tight knit group of religions that the social conservative believes are acceptable)
- Anti-transgender
- Anti-racial equality
Those are all pretty awful. So what are the "good" hot button issues that social conservatives get worked up about . . . the ones that I can cheer for too?
You mentioned that being against smoking and drinking is a good thing. But the anti-drinking manifested in prohibition . . . which was a total disaster. The war on drugs currently underway is maybe an important issue to social conservatives . . . but appears to be a total failure as well. It's almost like forcing people to do what you think is good doesn't work very well.
I'm socially conservative in some ways, but not others. I don't think I know anyone that would fit the parade of horrors you list, at least not as starkly as implied. So I don't know that I, or anyone really, is qualified to speak for a large and diverse group in such broad terms. Again, I think a lot of this is a caricature that comes down to defining a category for what one might consider "evil" or "wrong". But hey, I'll do my best to address some of your points, keeping in mind that this is one person's perspective...
Going with one of your examples: I think it's possible for a "social conservative" to adhere to a traditional religious sexual ethic (Judaeo-Christian and Islamic come to mind), yet have no expectation that others live by their mores. Some even support LGBTQ rights (as I do) as these are seen as basic human rights at a civic level and because ultimately their faith isn't about "following rules". Yet they see the wisdom of their ethic within their own community and life.
This is related to the topic of sex-ed. We essentially started talking with our kids about sex almost from birth, being very open talking about our bodies and using anatomically correct labels, and then we started talking with them in detail about the act of sex starting at about age 5-6 and have continued these conversations over the years. In our view sex is very good, but it's also very powerful. The great irony of our culture is that it elevates sex to such a high level of importance, so important that we talk about it as identity, but then so often we treat it casually. So we don't want "the talk" to just be about mechanics or a sense that "it's natural, just go for it." So for us the issue is not sex ed per se, but rather the values attached to various expressions of sex ed.
Evolution is an interesting one. I happen to be pro evolution, but against the notion that "evolution disproves your scriptures" (yes, I've encountered this personally), which is essentially a form of cultural imperialism.
I agree that prohibition was a disaster, but so too was the blasé attitude about drugs in the 60-70s. While I have zero interest in prohibiting alcohol, I do support policies to reduce binge drinking and to limit the commercialism and advertising that encourages a lot of destructive behavior. It's not an either/or issue, and as a society we need to have discussions about the interleaving details.
I hate posting about politics on this forum, but I can't resist this one.
***
The original post, of course, presumes that liberals have always been right. That could not be further from the case.
The easiest example is eugenics. Progressives believed we could sterilize "morons" (a medical term back in the day) in order to improve society.
The second easiest example is prohibition. It is laughably oversimplistic to presume that this was a bunch of evangelicals -- the prohibition movement did originate with evangelicals in Ohio, Maine, and Kansas; but by the turn of the century, the movement was largely led by both the Anti-Saloon League (a religious movement) AND progressives, and probably more so progressives, who became very active in regulating individual behavior around this time. We can argue history here, but it is no coincidence that the 18th amendment is smack dab in the middle of a handful of progressive amendments.
Another example is student loans. Progressives wanted everyone to go to college, and thus decided that the federal government, and not banks, should fund college, thus giving colleges a blank check to charge whatever they want. Schools are, in turn, becoming the biggest corporations in their respective states, and it's not close. Nothing has been more responsible for skyrocketing costs of higher education and crippling a generation of Americans than the federal government's involvement in handing out blank checks. The correlation is astonishing.
The greatest failure of progressives is the federalizing of EVERYTHING. It's amazing to me that progressives can largely say "LOL prohibition," and in the same breath think the FEDERAL government is the answer to all of society's ills. Maybe, just maybe, it's not.
I could go on and on, and I don't want to debate any particular issues, but this phrasing, from one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, struck me:To me at the moment they kinda appear to be (in no particular order):
- Anti-homosexuality
- Anti-sex ed
- Anti-theory of evolution
- Anti-abortion
- Anti-religion (other religions than what the social conservative believes)
- Pro-religion (but only the personal interpretation of the religion or a small tight knit group of religions that the social conservative believes are acceptable)
- Anti-transgender
- Anti-racial equality
Liberals have largely created caricature of conservatives that are an extreme minority of conservatives. I do not pretend that the professors and students who took over Evergreen State University represent liberals as a whole, and I just wish liberals would acknowledge the same about conservatives.
Most conservatives I know are not "anti" everything stated, but merely object to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being the one to control individual behavior. The "anti-sex ed" is the easiest one -- most conservatives are not anti-sex ed, but instead believe that the family unit should be the entity informing youth about sex and its implications, not the state.
I could go on with each of these issues, but they all carry largely the same message -- a FEDERAL government is not the answer to these issues.
In sum, the idea that conservatives are always wrong is loony; the idea that liberals are always right is equally loony.
Society is extremely complex, and having one party pushing forward with another resisting that push is actually the sign of a healthy democracy, not a bad one.
We are a country of extremely diverse opinions and viewpoints. I happen to believe a more decentralized government would be the best way to address this type of society, and I thus believe conservatives are correct in their procedural positions as to how society should move forward.
If that makes me "anti anti anti" man, so be it.
I think it's possible for a "social conservative" to adhere to a traditional religious sexual ethic (Judaeo-Christian and Islamic come to mind), yet have no expectation that others live by their mores. Some even support LGBTQ rights (as I do) as these are seen as basic human rights at a civic level and because ultimately their faith isn't about "following rules". Yet they see the wisdom of their ethic within their own community and life.
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
You'll have a hard time convincing me that abortion protesters are the least bit worried about the impact of abortions on the federal budget.
How do we save money by telling trans people which bathroom to use? By banning rainbow flags over embassies? By giving tax breaks to churches?
The easiest example is eugenics. Progressives believed we could sterilize "morons" (a medical term back in the day) in order to improve society.
This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.
Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.
Yes. Lol
This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
Yes, this isn't the best place to discuss these things. I come here to discuss early retirement.
It is the place “Off Topic” is just that. Sports, TV, politics, everything. Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info.
Social conservatives aren’t always wrong. The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society. Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting. But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy. Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show. Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War. Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”
I'm not saying that at all. You're putting words in my mouth.
I'm not saying that at all. You're putting words in my mouth.
Sorry, that wasn't my intent.
I agree that basically every social policy has some kind of economic impact, I just think the motivation usually falls on the social side and the consequences usually fall on the economic side, not the other way around. That means discussing the underlying problems with social conservativism can probably be done without considering the economics, since the economics are essentially an afterthought.
For example, the social conservatives who came up with the idea of the US government giving uniquely helpful tax breaks to churches were costing the government money, not saving money, in support of their social positions.
I'm not saying that at all. You're putting words in my mouth.
Sorry, that wasn't my intent.
I agree that basically every social policy has some kind of economic impact, I just think the motivation usually falls on the social side and the consequences usually fall on the economic side, not the other way around. That means discussing the underlying problems with social conservativism can probably be done without considering the economics, since the economics are essentially an afterthought.
For example, the social conservatives who came up with the idea of the US government giving uniquely helpful tax breaks to churches were costing the government money, not saving money, in support of their social positions.
So they established a federalism whereby the local government would be the most important, state governments next, and then a limited federal government.
Yes. Lol
This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
Yes, this isn't the best place to discuss these things. I come here to discuss early retirement.
It is the place “Off Topic” is just that. Sports, TV, politics, everything. Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info.
Social conservatives aren’t always wrong. The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society. Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting. But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy. Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show. Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War. Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”
It is the place “Off Topic” is just that. Sports, TV, politics, everything. Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info.
Social conservatives aren’t always wrong. The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society. Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting. But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy. Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show. Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War. Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”
It is the place “Off Topic” is just that. Sports, TV, politics, everything. Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info.
Social conservatives aren’t always wrong. The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society. Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting. But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy. Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show. Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War. Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”
I think I am misunderstanding something. Are you saying that it would have been better to let slavery continue for a while longer to try and be less disruptive of society?
I had to read that a couple times, but I think what was meant was that it would have been better for the South to give up slavery voluntarily as the North had, even though it would likely cause a degree of social/economic disruption, rather than to trigger a war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and led to the same outcome.
This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.
Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.
I could go on and on, and I don't want to debate any particular issues, but this phrasing, from one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, struck me:To me at the moment they kinda appear to be (in no particular order):
- Anti-homosexuality
- Anti-sex ed
- Anti-theory of evolution
- Anti-abortion
- Anti-religion (other religions than what the social conservative believes)
- Pro-religion (but only the personal interpretation of the religion or a small tight knit group of religions that the social conservative believes are acceptable)
- Anti-transgender
- Anti-racial equality
Liberals have largely created caricature of conservatives that are an extreme minority of conservatives. I do not pretend that the professors and students who took over Evergreen State University represent liberals as a whole, and I just wish liberals would acknowledge the same about conservatives.
Most conservatives I know are not "anti" everything stated, but merely object to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being the one to control individual behavior. The "anti-sex ed" is the easiest one -- most conservatives are not anti-sex ed, but instead believe that the family unit should be the entity informing youth about sex and its implications, not the state.
I could go on with each of these issues, but they all carry largely the same message -- a FEDERAL government is not the answer to these issues.
So what is the conservative answer? I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
Agree.
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's safety net.
I would think that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.
I am educable.
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
Agree.
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's safety net.
I would think that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.
I am educable.
Wow...um...okay...
That's just...wow...
Anyone else wanna take this?
So they established a federalism whereby the local government would be the most important, state governments next, and then a limited federal government.
As an aside @ReadySetMillionaire I think we can empirically establish that this is not in fact what Republicans / conservatives / people who call themselves federalists are actually for. I agree that that would be a logically consistent approach of federalism though, and has a lot to say for it.
In my state (NC) the same people who make a lot of "Federalism / State's Rights" noise also turn around and squash the autonomy of the more local governments at the same time. Ashville can't raise their minimum wage, Holly Springs can't turn on their community fiber they've already laid, coastal communities can't build wind turbines, Chapel Hill is not free to remove confederate statues, etc. The list never ends.
The observable actions of people who call themselves Federalists takes all the wind out of the sails of theoretical Federalism. It's obviously not about principles or a theory of good governance, it's obviously about consolidating power at the state level - and only the state level - because that's where conservatives think they can win. Those "liberal cities" get no power, their vote is gerrymandered away, and the rural conservatives pat themselves on the back for saving the country through "Federalism".
Painting "conservatives in general" as "pretending" about their ideals is the kind of broad brush dehumanizing that, as you have probably noticed, many politicians and manipulative political activists on the conservative side do about liberals. Please stop defaming all conservatives unjustly for the sins of some.
I'll grant you that the conservative movement politically these days has plenty of hypocrisy. But joining the slanderfest that is one of the common tactics on both sides these days isn't the way to break our current routine of being divided and frustrated. Let's be a little more accurate and fair.
So they established a federalism whereby the local government would be the most important, state governments next, and then a limited federal government.
As an aside @ReadySetMillionaire I think we can empirically establish that this is not in fact what Republicans / conservatives / people who call themselves federalists are actually for. I agree that that would be a logically consistent approach of federalism though, and has a lot to say for it.
In my state (NC) the same people who make a lot of "Federalism / State's Rights" noise also turn around and squash the autonomy of the more local governments at the same time. Ashville can't raise their minimum wage, Holly Springs can't turn on their community fiber they've already laid, coastal communities can't build wind turbines, Chapel Hill is not free to remove confederate statues, etc. The list never ends.
The observable actions of people who call themselves Federalists takes all the wind out of the sails of theoretical Federalism. It's obviously not about principles or a theory of good governance, it's obviously about consolidating power at the state level - and only the state level - because that's where conservatives think they can win. Those "liberal cities" get no power, their vote is gerrymandered away, and the rural conservatives pat themselves on the back for saving the country through "Federalism".
So what is the conservative answer? I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it, but how would a conservative in Kentucky address the issue of parents in Alabama failing to give their children important information (whether through ignorance or neglect) that the lack of could very well cause them harm in the future?
Honestly, if conservatives would offer more local solutions I would probably be for them. But without offering better solutions it just seems like conservatives want people to ignore the problem because they don't like the solution. I understand the value of federalism, I don't understand letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
You seem to want to define "social conservatives" as specifically being people who hold a certain collection of social values.
If that's your definition, then yes, they are always wrong.
Your definition is just tremendously narrow.
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
Do you believe that support of LGBTQ is socially conservative?
Because if I'm reading you right, it sounds like what you're saying is that you identify as socially conservative, but don't follow social conservatism on the issue of LGBTQ rights. Which is fine (and good for you) . . . but your example is notable because it's an exception and an area where you break with social conservatism.
Right. What you're doing sounds like a very reasonable way to discuss sex and sex education. But again, I have to ask . . . would you describe that as being socially conservative? Because I grew up in a pretty socially liberal household and that's how sex was always approached in our family.
If your scriptures say that the Earth was created in a few thousand years, they are empirically factually wrong. If your scriptures say that God created each animal and no animal has changed since then, that's empirically wrong. That's not cultural imperialism, it's proven fact.
That said, it doesn't mean that there is no value in the scriptures - the story telling and deciphering parables will obviously still hold tremendous value for answering moral questions or determining the best way to live your life. But literal interpretation is obviously foolish. Which makes sense . . . these books were written by fallible humans thousands of years ago, with the knowledge and understanding of fallible humans thousands of years ago. Of course they will contain mistakes. That doesn't mean that they're without value, but it does mean that you must interpret them with an understanding of the time that they were written. Literal interpretation will make you look like a fool when you butt up against conflicting reality.
I agree that prohibition was a disaster, but so too was the blasé attitude about drugs in the 60-70s. While I have zero interest in prohibiting alcohol, I do support policies to reduce binge drinking and to limit the commercialism and advertising that encourages a lot of destructive behavior. It's not an either/or issue, and as a society we need to have discussions about the interleaving details.
This is a perfectly valid and reasonable stance to hold. (And one that I hold myself.) But social conservatism does appear to have largely given up on drinking right now . . . and is currently waging a war against drugs. Particularly in the case of marijuana usage, I don't understand why social conservatives want to continue supporting the failed criminalization rules for this drug.
So what is the conservative answer? I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it, but how would a conservative in Kentucky address the issue of parents in Alabama failing to give their children important information (whether through ignorance or neglect) that the lack of could very well cause them harm in the future?
Honestly, if conservatives would offer more local solutions I would probably be for them. But without offering better solutions it just seems like conservatives want people to ignore the problem because they don't like the solution. I understand the value of federalism, I don't understand letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I think this goes to the great difference in empathy that conservatives and liberals have (there's a great NPR podcast on this). I can't speak for a conservative in Kentucky, but I imagine their response would be something like, "Let them figure it out, it's not my responsibility."
Yes. Lol
This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
Yes, this isn't the best place to discuss these things. I come here to discuss early retirement.
It is the place “Off Topic” is just that. Sports, TV, politics, everything. Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info.
Social conservatives aren’t always wrong. The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society. Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting. But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy. Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show. Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War. Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”
If alcohol and tobacco were well worth resisting, why is that no longer the case? They are no longer the target of the social conservative movement, so clearly something must have changed.
I also echo Psychstache 's comments and would like to know why you believe that allowing slavery in America to continue would have been better for society.
It is the place “Off Topic” is just that. Sports, TV, politics, everything. Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info.
Social conservatives aren’t always wrong. The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society. Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting. But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy. Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show. Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War. Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”
If alcohol and tobacco were well worth resisting, why is that no longer the case? They are no longer the target of the social conservative movement, so clearly something must have changed.
I also echo Psychstache 's comments and would like to know why you believe that allowing slavery in America to continue would have been better for society.
Jesus! I can practically hear the outrage getting charged like a pump action shotgun. My sympathies lie entirely with the slaves and the Union. If the US had more or less spontaneously freed all the slaves in, say 1855-60, it would’ve had no plan to deal with several million uneducated people hitting the bricks to go god knows where and doing god knows what to survive. Many thousands would’ve starved. Some thousands would resort to crime. Some would be the victims of crime. A few would’ve made it back to Africa and a lot would’ve been forced to utterly unprepared. It would’ve been a disaster. Many would be hired back onto plantations but at wages only marginally better than slavery and conditions that would mimic it. Or gone up north to nearly as deplorable industrial jobs competing with European immigrant labor. The Irish fresh off the boat weren’t that racist but they were desperate. A hard core racist protecting his privileges is bad enough. But a marginal racist protecting their livelihood is Satanic. It would’ve been a disaster. But a manageable disaster. Things would eventually have worked out by 1900 or so. We might have had a civil rights movement by 1930 or so.
Instead social conservatives bogged the whole process so we got almost all of that plus the largest bloodiest war in US history. A shit show.
@sol, there are many sincere conservatives who care strongly about their ideals. If you think they don't exist, you lack knowledge. Don't malign millions of people because your personal infobase is lacking. If you can't be bothered to meet any of them, at least take a peek at the nice TED talk linked in post 19, where the nice liberal discusses actual data on the subject.
(Hint: across multiple continents and cultures, conservatives sincerely hold 5 ideals; liberals consistently focus on 2 ideals; everybody agrees that the 2 liberal ideals are good; liberals and conservatives disagree about whether conservatives' other 3 ideals are good. But conservatives hold them sincerely.)
Painting "conservatives in general" as "pretending" about their ideals is the kind of broad brush dehumanizing that, as you have probably noticed, many politicians and manipulative political activists on the conservative side do about liberals. Please stop defaming all conservatives unjustly for the sins of some.
I'll grant you that the conservative movement politically these days has plenty of hypocrisy. But joining the slanderfest that is one of the common tactics on both sides these days isn't the way to break our current routine of being divided and frustrated. Let's be a little more accurate and fair.
This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.
Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.
If you're interested in looking into America's eugenics movement I recommend Better For All the World.
The title is taken verbatim from Buck v. Bell (1927), as far as I am aware, the most chilling, harshly worded opinion ever delivered by the Supreme Court of the United states.
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Holmes
It is the place “Off Topic” is just that. Sports, TV, politics, everything. Other areas of the forum swim with retirement info.
Social conservatives aren’t always wrong. The sad truth is some progressive movements are a tad premature and disruptive of society. Alcohol and tobacco were worth resisting. But social conservatives will always be handicapped by the fact their intent is always motivated by fear and authoritarian or near authoritarian control as their remedy. Their resistance takes what might be a bad progressive transition is instead turned into a shit show. Consider just freeing America’s black slaves to fend for themselves vs. the Civil War. Banning alcohol and tobacco by sour faced Puritanical types just made them “cool.”
If alcohol and tobacco were well worth resisting, why is that no longer the case? They are no longer the target of the social conservative movement, so clearly something must have changed.
I also echo Psychstache 's comments and would like to know why you believe that allowing slavery in America to continue would have been better for society.
Jesus! I can practically hear the outrage getting charged like a pump action shotgun. My sympathies lie entirely with the slaves and the Union. If the US had more or less spontaneously freed all the slaves in, say 1855-60, it would’ve had no plan to deal with several million uneducated people hitting the bricks to go god knows where and doing god knows what to survive. Many thousands would’ve starved. Some thousands would resort to crime. Some would be the victims of crime. A few would’ve made it back to Africa and a lot would’ve been forced to utterly unprepared. It would’ve been a disaster. Many would be hired back onto plantations but at wages only marginally better than slavery and conditions that would mimic it. Or gone up north to nearly as deplorable industrial jobs competing with European immigrant labor. The Irish fresh off the boat weren’t that racist but they were desperate. A hard core racist protecting his privileges is bad enough. But a marginal racist protecting their livelihood is Satanic. It would’ve been a disaster. But a manageable disaster. Things would eventually have worked out by 1900 or so. We might have had a civil rights movement by 1930 or so.
Instead social conservatives bogged the whole process so we got almost all of that plus the largest bloodiest war in US history. A shit show.
Wow, okay. I assumed misunderstanding on my part, but this comment certainly clarifies it.
I feel like I could right a book of a response, but I sense that we would just go round and round on this, so I'll simply leave it with, being both a passionate student of history and having the life experience of someone who has grown up and lived in the South their whole life, there is nothing that would leave me to believe that the bolded above is true.
Do you believe that support of LGBTQ is socially conservative?
Because if I'm reading you right, it sounds like what you're saying is that you identify as socially conservative, but don't follow social conservatism on the issue of LGBTQ rights. Which is fine (and good for you) . . . but your example is notable because it's an exception and an area where you break with social conservatism.
It's more nuanced than simply being pro this or anti that. I support LGBTQ rights even though I submit to a different ethic because a core tenet of my faith is that *all* people are made in the image of the divine, and our highest calling is to love others in action. (I'll be the first to admit that many, though not all, American churches have failed to understand or live up to this, nor am I perfect in this respect - such is the process of living out one's faith). Therefore I have zero interest in anyone being denied human rights because I live differently, and want all people to be treated with dignity and in love. Is this a break with social conservatism? It depends how one draws the boundaries. If we choose to draw it around the most extreme elements then it's clearly a break. But the most extreme elements are, IMO, the minority opinion within a diverse set of beliefs, which could also be said for groups on the Left. So again, I come to the point of questioning the usefulness of painting in such broad strokes.
Right. What you're doing sounds like a very reasonable way to discuss sex and sex education. But again, I have to ask . . . would you describe that as being socially conservative? Because I grew up in a pretty socially liberal household and that's how sex was always approached in our family.
In my view the core of social conservatism vs liberalism is a question of values, not methodology. Sure, on the extreme far-right you'll find anti-intellectuals and those who are essentially anti-sex or opposed to even talking about it. Our methodology is to engage with our kids and teach them as much as we can, but doing so within a conservative value. Of course it's up to them to decide how they live as they mature into adulthood, and we will love them unconditionally no matter their choices (as we like to tell them, there's nothing they can do to either increase or decrease our love for them), but we want to give them a framework for thinking about sexuality before they are thrown into a culture that is pervasive in its objectification of people.
So I have to ask a question...I suppose in a way turning your question back to you: Are you reluctant to admit you may have points of agreement with at least some social conservatives such that you're appropriating the overlap into your own sense of social identity?
I agree that prohibition was a disaster, but so too was the blasé attitude about drugs in the 60-70s. While I have zero interest in prohibiting alcohol, I do support policies to reduce binge drinking and to limit the commercialism and advertising that encourages a lot of destructive behavior. It's not an either/or issue, and as a society we need to have discussions about the interleaving details.
This is a perfectly valid and reasonable stance to hold. (And one that I hold myself.) But social conservatism does appear to have largely given up on drinking right now . . . and is currently waging a war against drugs. Particularly in the case of marijuana usage, I don't understand why social conservatives want to continue supporting the failed criminalization rules for this drug.
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
Agree.
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's safety net.
I would think that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.
I am educable.
That's pretty much the answer I expected and it's extremely disappointing to me every time I get it. I want to think the best of my fellow Americans of all political persuasions, but I kind of think that not caring about the suffering of others is pretty much the one thing that makes a person a 'bad' person in my eyes. I think that a lack of caring for others leads to negative effects for everyone on the individual and societal level. I also think that calling that kind of behavior 'bad' or 'wrong' is a legitimate method of changing said behavior through social pressure.
Also, I know it's not my responsibility to care for others, I choose to care because it makes the world a better place. It's also not my responsibility to care for others in Kentucky, others in my local community or even my own family but presumably a Kentucky conservative would still care about all of those people.
ETA: More on point, I think this is where the caricature that you were speaking of comes from and is why I have a hard time arguing against it. Because to liberals (and in actual effect), not caring about sex-ed (for the majority of Americans) is pretty much the same as anti-sex ed particularly when they are fighting against solutions (even if for a different reason).
This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.
Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.
If you're interested in looking into America's eugenics movement I recommend Better For All the World.
The title is taken verbatim from Buck v. Bell (1927), as far as I am aware, the most chilling, harshly worded opinion ever delivered by the Supreme Court of the United states.
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Holmes
Years ago I had a conversation with a co-worker who was very upset about gays being allowed to be Scout masters.
That's pretty much the answer I expected and it's extremely disappointing to me every time I get it. I want to think the best of my fellow Americans of all political persuasions, but I kind of think that not caring about the suffering of others is pretty much the one thing that makes a person a 'bad' person in my eyes. I think that a lack of caring for others leads to negative effects for everyone on the individual and societal level. I also think that calling that kind of behavior 'bad' or 'wrong' is a legitimate method of changing said behavior through social pressure.
Also, I know it's not my responsibility to care for others, I choose to care because it makes the world a better place. It's also not my responsibility to care for others in Kentucky, others in my local community or even my own family but presumably a Kentucky conservative would still care about all of those people.
ETA: More on point, I think this is where the caricature that you were speaking of comes from and is why I have a hard time arguing against it. Because to liberals (and in actual effect), not caring about sex-ed (for the majority of Americans) is pretty much the same as anti-sex ed particularly when they are fighting against solutions (even if for a different reason).
This is the podcast I was talking about and it's worth a listen: https://www.npr.org/2018/10/03/654127241/nature-nurture-and-your-politics
This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.
Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.
If you're interested in looking into America's eugenics movement I recommend Better For All the World.
The title is taken verbatim from Buck v. Bell (1927), as far as I am aware, the most chilling, harshly worded opinion ever delivered by the Supreme Court of the United states.
"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes...Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Justice Holmes
I've done a fair amount of reading into this case (ending up kinda concerned that it still stands today in the US and has not been overturned). I think that it's a valid demonstration of a time in the past that social conservatives were in the right. Justice Holms was a socially liberal judge. The concept of using eugenics to control human breeding was a social change that was (and still is) clearly evil.
I'd be happier if I could find a case where social conservatives were in the right in the past 50 - 60 years though, but that is clearly moving the goalposts. :P
not with a 10 foot pole
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
Agree.
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's safety net.
I would think that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.
I am educable.
Wow...um...okay...
That's just...wow...
Anyone else wanna take this?
Nope.
I had the same reaction as you.
The things you're advocating are all issues supported by social liberals. So . . . I guess I'm asking . . . why do you believe that you're socially conservative?
Social conservatism is the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.[1] This can include moral issues.[2] Social conservatism is generally skeptical of social change, and believes in maintaining the status quo concerning social issues such as family life, sexual relations, and patriotism.
all the things that they've opposed . . . immigration
At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's safety net.
I would think that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
Agree.
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's safety net.
I would think that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.
I am educable.
The problem you appear to be identifying is providing support to unwed mothers . . . by saying that unwed mothers tend to have impoverished households.
You're arguing that providing this minimal support costs more than it saves society. Could you elaborate exactly how you came to this conclusion? The chart provided seems unrelated.
Given the conclusion that you've made, can you explain what you believe the solution to the problem should be?
I am quite socially progressive.
I would advocate subsidising all abortions to the point where they are free. I figure if a woman does not want a child, it's better and more utilitarian all around to give her the easiest choice possible.
I live in a country with universal healthcare and they still cost a few hundred bucks even after rebates.
We should make them entirely free, and we should give all women pamphlets and information about how to access abortions.
If you want to reduce your country's welfare bill and increase the welfare of your mothers, the best thing to do is to remove all political, financial and social obstacles to abortions.
I live in a country with universal healthcare and they still cost a few hundred bucks even after rebates.
We should make them entirely free, and we should give all women pamphlets and information about how to access abortions.
If you want to reduce your country's welfare bill and increase the welfare of your mothers, the best thing to do is to remove all political, financial and social obstacles to abortions.
Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?
There was a fairly credible economics study that demonstrated that accessibility to abortion leads to a lower crime rate. Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?
You really can't separate fiscal and social policies completely because all fiscal policies are driven by some kind of ideology, and ALL policies either cost or save money.
Agree.
Preponderantly, unwed mothers and absent-father households are precursory of impoverishment and dependence on society's safety net.
I would think that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save.
I am educable.
all the things that they've opposed . . . immigration
Ignoring all the rest of the post, I'm not sure that social conservatives have always opposed immigration in North America. Immigration was wide open at the start of the US and largely unrestricted until after 1920.
Even today some religious and economic conservatives ague fervently in support of immigration. At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?
all the things that they've opposed . . . immigration
Ignoring all the rest of the post, I'm not sure that social conservatives have always opposed immigration in North America. Immigration was wide open at the start of the US and largely unrestricted until after 1920.
Even today some religious and economic conservatives ague fervently in support of immigration. At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?
I would argue that they were fine with immigration of the right sort of people (read: white, European). The Mexican Repatriation movement (which my grandparents barely escaped) and Chinese Exclusion Acts are illustrative.
Jewish quotas (and a particular boat full of jewish refugees who couldnt find a port to land at until a lot of them died) are big reasons Isreal was formed.
So FDR is a social conservative now?
There was a fairly credible economics study that demonstrated that accessibility to abortion leads to a lower crime rate. Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?
While discussing the natural-law foundation of a woman's right to choose abortion with some staunch, anti-abortion Catholics I asserted the unwanted children-social pathology nexus, which, needless to say, received a chilly reception.
I would argue that they were fine with immigration of the right sort of people (read: white, European). The Mexican Repatriation movement (which my grandparents barely escaped) and Chinese Exclusion Acts are illustrative.
The RIGHT kind of European -- Italians and Irish and Slavs were not the right kind of white. And there were Jewish quotas, too, which was particularly horrible during WW2.
Then, we've got issues like Japanese Internment Camps, which were put into place after all the intelligence people said "we've got no worries about the patriotism of Japanese-Americans..."
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.
As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?
The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.
As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?
The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.
What are acceptable reasons for a woman to lose autonomy over her own body and be forced into childbearing?
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.
As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?
The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.
What are acceptable reasons for a woman to lose autonomy over her own body and be forced into childbearing?
I am a white, heterosexual man and I have been told that I am not to have an opinion on this. This is for women and the LGBT community to figure out.
Also what happens if a thousand women make this choice? Are minority communities to be at the mercy of another? Is a tool of liberation also a tool of oppression? It's gonna be a weird world to live in.
I would suppose it varies. Technology and science will change the way we see things.
As we explore the human genome with CRISPR (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2019/06/21/733782145/a-russian-biologist-wants-to-create-more-gene-edited-babies) we may stumble across a genetic cause for homosexuality and transgenderism. If this can be screened for would a woman have the right to abort based on that one characteristic alone? Is that a woman's choice or a phobia?
The point is as society gets more complicated and nuanced being on "the right side of history" becomes murky.
What are acceptable reasons for a woman to lose autonomy over her own body and be forced into childbearing?
I am a white, heterosexual man and I have been told that I am not to have an opinion on this. This is for women and the LGBT community to figure out.
Also what happens if a thousand women make this choice? Are minority communities to be at the mercy of another? Is a tool of liberation also a tool of oppression? It's gonna be a weird world to live in.
I'm also white and heterosexual . . . and have opinions on it. Naturally, my opinion should matter an awful lot less than that of the people who will actually have their lives impacted.
Right. If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.
But those are pretty big ifs.
First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists. From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners. Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay. (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found. Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay. It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)
Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait. If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing. I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended. Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.
Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?
Everyone? I don't think that many people will argue that children that parents don't want are all that great for society.
Right. If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.
But those are pretty big ifs.
First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists. From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners. Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay. (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found. Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay. It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)
Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait. If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing. I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended. Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.
Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."
To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.
A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606) So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.
And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)
(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )
From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"
Unwanted children are a problem for society, who knew?
Everyone? I don't think that many people will argue that children that parents don't want are all that great for society.
Um, I was adopted by parents who wanted another child. It's not easy, but it is a decent option.
re: artificial wombs -- will women want it? Or will women want the natural experience of pregnancy and childbirth?
Some women might want to do without, particularly if they are appearance-motivated, but I'd bet that most women now would choose a natural pregnancy unless they are marketed away from it as being undesirable.
Artificial womb babies won't be free, they will be for the rich only, at least until babies are mass-produced. Perhaps factory-seconds will be available at the outlet.
Some women might want to do without, particularly if they are appearance-motivated, but I'd bet that most women now would choose a natural pregnancy unless they are marketed away from it as being undesirable.
You're telling me I should read a sci-fi soap novel for the answers to modern society?
Well, I've had three pregnancies so I have a little bit of experience with the subject. I am just not sure that it is something that most women would want to hire out. It would be easy to market out of convenience though, that is for sure.
Right. If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.
But those are pretty big ifs.
First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists. From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners. Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay. (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found. Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay. It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)
Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait. If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing. I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended. Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.
Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."
To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.
A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606) So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.
And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)
(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )
From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"
If artificial wombs are a real and readily available thing, then there shouldn't be cause for abortion any more should there? I mean, the main reason for supporting a woman's right to abortion is that otherwise you force her to become an unwilling incubator for the term of the pregnancy. The artificial womb scenario means we can just remove an undeveloped fetus and then allow it to develop without infringing on anyone's rights.
If you value women primarily as an incubator, then yes . . . I guess the case could be made that artificial wombs would radically devalue all the women in your life. I don't believe that this belief system is true for the majority of people though. From my experiences the people who tend to hold these views are social conservatives (often with a religious bent).
As far as 'designer children' . . . there exists no evidence that it will ever be possible to prevent all types if mental breakdown - or even that this would be desirable. There's a very strong link between creativity and mental illness (it's rather shocking how many great artists have exhibited sights of mental illness) for example. Do you believe that parents will give up the chance to have a creative child for the possibility of preventing mental illness? As far as defective development goes, artificial insemination going on today already culls defective embryos (and perfectly good embryos when there are too many developing) and there doesn't seem to be too much concern over the practice.
I like this Gattaca style sci-fi thought experiment direction we're heading in. There will always be new questions that need to be answered morally as our world changes. I'm not sure that imagining hypothetical situations to 'prove' problems with social liberalism is likely to make much sense though.
Right. If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.
But those are pretty big ifs.
First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists. From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners. Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay. (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found. Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay. It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)
Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait. If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing. I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended. Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.
Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."
To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.
A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606) So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.
And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)
(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )
From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"
If artificial wombs are a real and readily available thing, then there shouldn't be cause for abortion any more should there? I mean, the main reason for supporting a woman's right to abortion is that otherwise you force her to become an unwilling incubator for the term of the pregnancy. The artificial womb scenario means we can just remove an undeveloped fetus and then allow it to develop without infringing on anyone's rights.
If you value women primarily as an incubator, then yes . . . I guess the case could be made that artificial wombs would radically devalue all the women in your life. I don't believe that this belief system is true for the majority of people though. From my experiences the people who tend to hold these views are social conservatives (often with a religious bent).
As far as 'designer children' . . . there exists no evidence that it will ever be possible to prevent all types if mental breakdown - or even that this would be desirable. There's a very strong link between creativity and mental illness (it's rather shocking how many great artists have exhibited sights of mental illness) for example. Do you believe that parents will give up the chance to have a creative child for the possibility of preventing mental illness? As far as defective development goes, artificial insemination going on today already culls defective embryos (and perfectly good embryos when there are too many developing) and there doesn't seem to be too much concern over the practice.
I like this Gattaca style sci-fi thought experiment direction we're heading in. There will always be new questions that need to be answered morally as our world changes. I'm not sure that imagining hypothetical situations to 'prove' problems with social liberalism is likely to make much sense though.
"
overlapping “rights not to procreate.” First, there is a right not to be a gestational parent: That is, a woman has the right to stop gestating, or carrying a fetus to term. Second, there is a right not to be a legal parent: The law cannot force on a woman, against her wishes, the legal duties of parenthood. Finally, the right to have an abortion implies a right not to be a genetic parent — for there to be no child that comes into being that is her genetic offspring."
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/23/16186468/artificial-wombs-radically-transform-abortion-debate
Transferring the fetus out of the woman only solves the gestation part. If the fetus is viable what happens to the other 2?
We split atoms and went to the moon, figuring out DNA can't be any more difficult than those two things once humanity puts its mind to it.
If the woman has bad memories with mental illness I imagine she would sacrifice creativity to avoid mental illness.
I enjoy the thought experiment. Holding things as absolutes (such as a woman's right to choose) may turn out bad as our culture shifts and changes. As you point out the general term is towards greater individuality. The more power an individual has the more responsibility to use it properly.
I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . . slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc.
Despite the furor, social conservatives historically always lose in the end . . . but often they manage to cause a lot of pain and suffering before they finally do capitulate. So what exactly is the draw to the movement? What are it's long term goals?
We went to the moon to win a who's-strong-enough-to-kill-more-people pissing contest. Science was not enough then, let alone now.
Science was important, engineering was important, and not just for writing hookup apps.
Right. If your supposition that gayness/being transgender is genetic, and then the assumption that a large number women would choose to abort children for being gay comes true then that is a potential problem.
But those are pretty big ifs.
First of all, there is little evidence that a 'gay gene' exists. From what I understand the genes identified as being more common in gay men are also more common in straight men who have many (hetero)sexual partners. Having so called gay genes is no guarantee that a child will end up gay. (As an aside . . . In some ways I think it would be great for a gay gene to be found. Imagine having direct evidence for the people with religious objections to homosexuality that God in His infinite wisdom created people with no choice but to be gay. It would kinda destroy their whole argument about homosexuality being 'unnatural'.)
Next of all, rejection of gay and transgender people is a socially conservative trait. If social conservatives are also against abortion, then it would seem that there's a bit of built in protection against the very scenario you're describing. I mean, otherwise they would be 'killing an unborn child' to prevent him/her from being born as God intended. Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical.
Alternatively there has been talk of "designer children."
To me that means that we will be doing extensive research and development to insure that the final "product" is not "defective". After all, if you pay thousands of dollars to design something, it shouldn't have a mental breakdown upon reaching puberty.
A singular "Gay Gene" may not exist yet we will be gathering data and have better control over variables than ever before. Of course if such things are determined during development we can test that now too thanks to artificial wombs. (https://gizmodo.com/artificial-wombs-are-getting-better-and-better-1833639606) So we can tinker around with a beings DNA as well as the chemicals that help it grow.
And before you say "We're years from growing an embryo to birth in an artificial wombs," the only restriction is that scientists abort embryos after 13 days because it starts developing human spinal features, which causes ethics problems. (https://nationalpost.com/health/artificial-wombs)
(Of course artificial wombs could free women from reproductive labor but would we end up valuing women less? Is there something disturbing in automating reproduction? )
From what I understand Gender Dysphoria causes severe mental anguish. The question would be "if you have thw power to prevent another humans suffering, should you use it?"
If artificial wombs are a real and readily available thing, then there shouldn't be cause for abortion any more should there? I mean, the main reason for supporting a woman's right to abortion is that otherwise you force her to become an unwilling incubator for the term of the pregnancy. The artificial womb scenario means we can just remove an undeveloped fetus and then allow it to develop without infringing on anyone's rights.
If you value women primarily as an incubator, then yes . . . I guess the case could be made that artificial wombs would radically devalue all the women in your life. I don't believe that this belief system is true for the majority of people though. From my experiences the people who tend to hold these views are social conservatives (often with a religious bent).
As far as 'designer children' . . . there exists no evidence that it will ever be possible to prevent all types if mental breakdown - or even that this would be desirable. There's a very strong link between creativity and mental illness (it's rather shocking how many great artists have exhibited sights of mental illness) for example. Do you believe that parents will give up the chance to have a creative child for the possibility of preventing mental illness? As far as defective development goes, artificial insemination going on today already culls defective embryos (and perfectly good embryos when there are too many developing) and there doesn't seem to be too much concern over the practice.
I like this Gattaca style sci-fi thought experiment direction we're heading in. There will always be new questions that need to be answered morally as our world changes. I'm not sure that imagining hypothetical situations to 'prove' problems with social liberalism is likely to make much sense though.
"
overlapping “rights not to procreate.” First, there is a right not to be a gestational parent: That is, a woman has the right to stop gestating, or carrying a fetus to term. Second, there is a right not to be a legal parent: The law cannot force on a woman, against her wishes, the legal duties of parenthood. Finally, the right to have an abortion implies a right not to be a genetic parent — for there to be no child that comes into being that is her genetic offspring."
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/23/16186468/artificial-wombs-radically-transform-abortion-debate
Transferring the fetus out of the woman only solves the gestation part. If the fetus is viable what happens to the other 2?
We split atoms and went to the moon, figuring out DNA can't be any more difficult than those two things once humanity puts its mind to it.
If the woman has bad memories with mental illness I imagine she would sacrifice creativity to avoid mental illness.
I enjoy the thought experiment. Holding things as absolutes (such as a woman's right to choose) may turn out bad as our culture shifts and changes. As you point out the general term is towards greater individuality. The more power an individual has the more responsibility to use it properly.
Today if a woman gives birth, she's legally forced into responsibility for the child (unless she jumps through the legal hoops required for adoption). This of course isn't a problem when an abortion takes place, but a child unwanted by the parent and birthed from an artificial womb to avoid abortion should be raised by the state until such time as it can be put up for adoption. This should keep the pro-choice people happy (the woman gets her choice) and the pro-life people happy (the baby isn't aborted). Unless the pro-life people merely want to force the child on the woman as a punishment for carnal sin. But if that's the case - fuck them. If they have a problem with paying for the children that they don't want to abort - well, that's kinda hypocritical isn't it?
I'd say that it's just as likely that a woman might choose the creativity/possible mental illness genes in the hopes that her child is the a superstar musician or poet.
I like your scientific optimism. The drive to split atoms was to develop more efficient ways of killing people . . . now it's impossible to build a new nuclear reactor. We went to the moon, walked around, and can no longer do so . . . because people aren't interested in science.
FWIW, I've never held a woman's right to choose as an absolute. It is a bad idea currently, let alone in a hypothetical future. If a fetus is 9 months old, I don't think an abortion should be legal . . . and this is not a particularly unusual position to hold.
I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . . slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc.
Despite the furor, social conservatives historically always lose in the end . . . but often they manage to cause a lot of pain and suffering before they finally do capitulate. So what exactly is the draw to the movement? What are it's long term goals?
I'll give it a shot :). One clear example is opposing communism. Lenin/Stalin/Maoism was one of the worst things to ever happen to humanity and they were right to oppose it at every turn. In fact I think they may not have gone far enough, and that is a result of living in, traveling through, and observing a number of communist and formerly communist countries.
Another point is that social conservatism is pretty much by definition mostly right, because pretty much all new ideas are bunk. Of course most never leave people's brains, most of the rest maybe get mentioned a few times, a handful get small group followings, but at some point people realize it was not actually that great an idea, with a low rate of exceptions. There are a few cases where they have been absurdly catastrophically wrong, but those are exaggerated by survivor bias (you never heard of the countless times they were right because those ideas never gained enough traction to get heard or remembered) and your strong personal bias.
I also have a theory that those who call themselves social conservatives are those who want to maximize their group's ability to win, which I will say has historically been equal to a group's population X productivity X social unity. Historically that has been pretty much the only winning strategy, and groups who did poorly at it disappeared. So they have mostly been right. On the other hand, always maximizing those is not necessarily good for individuals or for the species as a whole, which is where liberals in every society fit in emphasizing both individuality and collectivism.
Break your list into the three factors that maximize winning:
Maximize Population:
Oppose abortion
Oppose birth control
Oppose any sex except heterosexual sex
Minimal women's rights
Favor immigration of individuals with similar values or who could easily adopt similar values
Maximize Productivity:
Oppose recreational drugs and drunkenness
Favor capitalism, with some constraints
You didn't mention any, but historically productivity is proportional to energy expenditure so:
Maximixe oil production
Maximize cattle production (the highest energy form of sustenance)
Most and largest vehicles
Maximal industry
and others
Maximize Social Unity
Democracy may not do this (but it also may)
Oppose excessive civil rights
Oppose gays if they view themselves as fundamentally different to the group
Oppose interracial marriage
Oppose immigration by those who are very different
Oppose dissenting religions
Uniform clothing
Put those together and you can see that social conservatism is a highly effective strategy for a group to win. PopulationXproductivityXunity has been so successful for so long that it is deeply entrenched around the world.
I don't think slavery was conservative. It only really flourished in the New World where the European traditionalists wouldn't be disturbed. It could never have been done at scale within Europe because the populists would have burned the slaveowners at the stake for bringing in thousands of abjectly different foreigners to take their jobs for no pay. The conservative elite would have opposed it because a slave would never have been as efficient or innovative as a person getting paid would have been (lower productivity), and it introduced into society a large group of deeply resentful people with a very different culture (divided populace). It violated two of the three conservative objectives, in addition to the liberal ideals. Basically it was a terrible idea doomed to failure, and it is tragic that the social conservatives of the time didn't squish it before it started. Anybody who thinks slavery was a good idea is an idiot rather than a conservative.
FWIW, I've never held a woman's right to choose as an absolute. It is a bad idea currently, let alone in a hypothetical future. If a fetus is 9 months old, I don't think an abortion should be legal . . . and this is not a particularly unusual position to hold.
FWIW, I've never held a woman's right to choose as an absolute. It is a bad idea currently, let alone in a hypothetical future. If a fetus is 9 months old, I don't think an abortion should be legal . . . and this is not a particularly unusual position to hold.
A woman's right to choose abortion is an absolute right.
"Absolute rights" is a term that is synonymous with "negative rights," "negative liberties," "human rights," "universal rights," "inalienable rights," "unalienable rights," "fundamental liberties," "fundamental rights," and "natural rights."
Inherency characterizes absolute rights: Inherency is the reason they are absolute. As such they are neither grantable nor revocable. Absolute rights are immutable and timeless. They exist independent of any society, legislature, statute book, or court. The absoluteness of these rights is distinctly separate from their exercise. If exercised absolutely their untrammeled exercise would collide with ordered liberty, a constitutional essential that requires exercise of all rights to be in conformity with reasonable constraints.
Roe is a case in point. Predictably, the Court was not persuaded that its finding of a woman's fundamental right to choose abortion allowed her "to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses."
Social conservatives typically value family.
I once read an interesting book about surrogate mothers, people who so love the process of growing a baby that they volunteer to do it for other people. There was a lot of discussion about how different women respond in different ways to pregnancy, with the majority finding it not only inconvenient and painful but generally horrible for all aspects of their lives. But then there's this slim minority of women who genuinely love it, through some combination of genetics and social conditioning, who find it awakens their senses and alters the body and mind in ways that they then lament losing.
So I doubt artificial wombs will ever wholly replace natural childbirth. At least some people will still do it the old fashioned way, as long as it's allowed. Remember that the whole plot of Brave New World is based on the unexpected, and thus uncontrollable, natural birth of a person outside of the state's factory wombs.
This is fascinating to me. I think I didn’t realize this even was a thing for some women. Personally pregnancy is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy unless that was what the person really really wanted. For people who want it it is wonderful. For anything less than that my experiences is that it is among to sentencing someone to 24/7 hard labor camp with no chance of parole.I once read an interesting book about surrogate mothers, people who so love the process of growing a baby that they volunteer to do it for other people. There was a lot of discussion about how different women respond in different ways to pregnancy, with the majority finding it not only inconvenient and painful but generally horrible for all aspects of their lives. But then there's this slim minority of women who genuinely love it, through some combination of genetics and social conditioning, who find it awakens their senses and alters the body and mind in ways that they then lament losing.
So I doubt artificial wombs will ever wholly replace natural childbirth. At least some people will still do it the old fashioned way, as long as it's allowed. Remember that the whole plot of Brave New World is based on the unexpected, and thus uncontrollable, natural birth of a person outside of the state's factory wombs.
I'm one of those weird women. I loved how I felt when I was pregnant (happy hormones), I even enjoyed breast feeding. In college I considered being an egg donor or surrogate Mom (yes in part for the money, but also because I didn't mind it so much), except I was worried about future fertility. Mom's mom side of the family was like that; grandmother's sisters of which there were 6 or 7, all had large families. Yes they were Catholic but it also seemed their preference. Not to say pregnancy is comfortable or I had zero side effects, but on the whole it was something I was very glad to experience.
This is fascinating to me. I think I didn’t realize this even was a thing for some women. Personally pregnancy is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy unless that was what the person really really wanted. For people who want it it is wonderful. For anything less than that my experiences is that it is among to sentencing someone to 24/7 hard labor camp with no chance of parole.I once read an interesting book about surrogate mothers, people who so love the process of growing a baby that they volunteer to do it for other people. There was a lot of discussion about how different women respond in different ways to pregnancy, with the majority finding it not only inconvenient and painful but generally horrible for all aspects of their lives. But then there's this slim minority of women who genuinely love it, through some combination of genetics and social conditioning, who find it awakens their senses and alters the body and mind in ways that they then lament losing.
So I doubt artificial wombs will ever wholly replace natural childbirth. At least some people will still do it the old fashioned way, as long as it's allowed. Remember that the whole plot of Brave New World is based on the unexpected, and thus uncontrollable, natural birth of a person outside of the state's factory wombs.
I'm one of those weird women. I loved how I felt when I was pregnant (happy hormones), I even enjoyed breast feeding. In college I considered being an egg donor or surrogate Mom (yes in part for the money, but also because I didn't mind it so much), except I was worried about future fertility. Mom's mom side of the family was like that; grandmother's sisters of which there were 6 or 7, all had large families. Yes they were Catholic but it also seemed their preference. Not to say pregnancy is comfortable or I had zero side effects, but on the whole it was something I was very glad to experience.
Just to be a devil's advocate, but I would say social conservatives are right in that drugs can be bad for one's physical and mental health. Most people here would agree that making meth or pcp or crack illegal is not a bad thing. In turn have if not bans but at least restrictions on alcohol and pot and who can smoke (age wise) and in what situations is actually better for society and healthier for the individual.
I doubt anyone of any political persuasion would be championing for more heroine for all. I can see one set of people being strongly for prohibition at any cost and another set being willing to consider alternative schemes that do a better job of achieving the end goal of less harm and fewer addicts.
“Don’t let evidence get in the way of good ideology” seems to be a mantra that some love to stick to. I’m thinking sec education, access to birth control, climate change, vaccinations, GMOs, and others.
re: the sexual revolution not being a huge improvement --- thank you for this.
This is a balancing act. It is bad to push young girls into premature sexuality, just as it is bad to expect young girls to not have any sexual thoughts or feelings. It is wrong not to expect any consequences of responsibility of men and women for their actions.
Like personally, I don't appreciate things like Howard Stern's pushing of anal sex on the populace, particularly on men as an expectation and on women to oblige the men.
The extremes are very bad on both ends.
re: the sexual revolution not being a huge improvement --- thank you for this.
This is a balancing act. It is bad to push young girls into premature sexuality, just as it is bad to expect young girls to not have any sexual thoughts or feelings. It is wrong not to expect any consequences of responsibility of men and women for their actions.
Like personally, I don't appreciate things like Howard Stern's pushing of anal sex on the populace, particularly on men as an expectation and on women to oblige the men.
The extremes are very bad on both ends.
I agree. It does seem like the extreme of either side (right or left) is really not a place I want to live. In general I feel like people's sexual lives should be their own private business. Socially, media-wise it feels like our culture is youth and sex oriented. It feels like for example to be a successful singer or band, can't just be good with music but "look" a certain way. I have 2 daughters and I don't want them to feel pressured in any way to be sexual sooner than they are comfortable, and be OK whatever the situation is, to say "no" if they don't want to even if culture is saying everything goes.
If banning of substances is a conservative position, how would we classify a ban on sodas? What about guns?
Is prohibition really a conservative position? In a political sense, conservatism is against regulation. Social conservatism on the other hand is against the use of drugs. Perhaps the position of discouraging while allowing their use is the conservative position.
I think there's too many definitions of conservative to properly use the word without specifying which version you're using, and even then, it's complicated. There's political, economic, & social conservatism which overlap but are not the same then there's the conservative as opposed to liberal and also the conservative as opposed to progressive.
The natural right of procreation is a dual right inclusive of the right to have children or not.
The natural right of procreation is a dual right inclusive of the right to have children or not.
Rights are an imaginary and human construct. The concept of 'natural rights' is in fact, wholly unnatural and unique to the minds of people. In nature you will find no entity granting rights, but plenty denying them - quite naturally. The term 'natural rights' is often used to advocate an idea while attempting to shut down debate regarding the necessity and origin of said rights by insinuating that they are somehow a law of nature.
Unfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/QuoteUnfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.
Rings quite true in this thread.
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/QuoteUnfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.
Rings quite true in this thread.
That is a fantastic article. I'm curious as to how they did the research, but the results mesh with what I've seen in life.
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.
That seems pretty rich. Are you lobbing insults at the very people you accuse? Isn't that a little hypocritical?
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.
Could you quote some of the posts where "hardcore liberals in this thread" are unable "to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint" as example?
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.
Could you quote some of the posts where "hardcore liberals in this thread" are unable "to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint" as example?
This would take way too much time and I try not to come here for more than a couple minutes at a time. Take off your team's cap and go back and read this thread critically.
My post is in response to the thread title "Are social conservatives always wrong." I offered examples in which, from my viewpoint, it would be incorrect to claim that "social conservatives are always wrong."BicycleB has spoken well, and said things more politely than I would say them.
You can argue all you want if your goal in this thread is a special space to vent your personal diatribe against every detail of every policy supported by the people you label social conservatives, while excluding every good act or thought by conservatives on the ground that you don't want to include them as "social conservatives." That's not an argument I'm interested in having. I just feel that endless vituperative attacks on people who disagree is part of the problem our society has right now, and seeing the points where there is humanity on the other side is a useful path towards a healthier society. I have done my part to increase understanding. You can ignore it if you like.
So, just to confirm . . . you're unwilling to take the time to discuss your own comments about those with an opposing viewpoint?
"Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races."
"You believe that limiting access to drink is a predominantly socially liberal policy? Can you point to any similar socially liberal policies today in a similar vein?"
Here you appear to be conflating social liberalism with fiscal liberalism. They are different.
Again, social liberalism has little to do with empowering the federal government. I believe you're confusing social with fiscal liberalism.
I'm specifically talking about social conservatism. I've mentioned several times . . . fiscal conservatism seems to be grounded in reason, and while I don't always agree with the conclusions reached from it's logic, there is certainly value to it.
You can argue all you want if your goal in this thread is a special space to vent your personal diatribe against every detail of every policy supported by the people you label social conservatives, while excluding every good act or thought by conservatives on the ground that you don't want to include them as "social conservatives." That's not an argument I'm interested in having. I just feel that endless vituperative attacks on people who disagree is part of the problem our society has right now, and seeing the points where there is humanity on the other side is a useful path towards a healthier society. I have done my part to increase understanding. You can ignore it if you like.
So, just to confirm . . . you're unwilling to take the time to discuss your own comments about those with an opposing viewpoint?
I spent a lot of time on my initial post in this thread only to have a not serious dialogue about what I brought up. So I'm hesitant to go down this rabbit hole, but I will do so just to show you why you're not getting many conservatives to bite in this thread. So, I'm going to dovetail just my first post, and basically why I didn't even respond to your response, which indicated to me you did not want to have any serious discussion about what I brought up.
In response to my pointing out that eugenics was a progressive movement (which it unquestionably was), you wrote:Quote"Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races."
If you can't acknowledge eugenics was a progressive movement, we should just stop there, because it's a blatant dodge of uncontroverted fact. This wasn't even worth responding to for me because it indicates you don't want to have a serious dialogue about this particular progressive failure, and how it might portend to other progressive failures.
This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.
Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea? My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.
I've done a fair amount of reading into this case (ending up kinda concerned that it still stands today in the US and has not been overturned). I think that it's a valid demonstration of a time in the past that social conservatives were in the right. Justice Holms was a socially liberal judge. The concept of using eugenics to control human breeding was a social change that was (and still is) clearly evil.
In response to my pointing out that prohibition was a dovetail of both the religious orthodoxy AND the progressive movement (which it unquestionably was, watch "Prohibition" by Ken Burns),Quote"You believe that limiting access to drink is a predominantly socially liberal policy? Can you point to any similar socially liberal policies today in a similar vein?"
Again, by failing to acknowledge that progressives also want to ban individual consumer behavior (see drink policies, sugar policies, etc. in major cities), what serious dialogue is there to have here?
I know, I know -- "There's a difference between complete prohibition and regulation!!!" Look, both conservatives and progressives want to regulate individual behavior in the way they see fit. There are things conservatives want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, there are things liberals want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, and on and on. If you can't acknowledge that, there's no serious discussion to be had here.
In response to my pointing out the federal funding of student loans is by far the biggest issue behind the student loan crisis (and it unquestionably is), you wrote:QuoteHere you appear to be conflating social liberalism with fiscal liberalism. They are different.
If you will not acknowledge that some fiscal decisions are inescapably intertwined with social issues, then there's not really a discussion to be had here.
It's certainly possible to be both socially and fiscally conservative.
It's also possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Most libertarians (for example) tend to identify in this area.
Fiscal conservatism at it's core is about keeping government less funded and smaller. As mentioned in your church tax break example, social conservative values often come in conflict with fiscal conservatism.
Therefore social conservatism is not inextricably linked to fiscal conservatism.
There are fiscal consequences of social conservative policies of course, but this is beside the point.
I have no issue with fiscal conservative because although I generally disagree with the theories I have had enough explained of it to see that there does exist a logical framework of reasoning behind it. The same has never really happened for me with social conservatism. It doesn't make sense to me, and what I see ends up seeming pretty distasteful most of the time. Hence my question.
In response to my pointing out that the nationalization of certain constitutional doctrines has led to a warped country -- one that was never meant to be (i.e., Texas and Maine were never going to have the same marriage policies, or whatever), you wrote:QuoteAgain, social liberalism has little to do with empowering the federal government. I believe you're confusing social with fiscal liberalism.
This is such a blatant dodge of the progressive movement's FEDERALIZING the Supreme Court and its powers under FDR.
You need to read Wickard v. Fillburn and other decisions of this era to understand how the power of the court and Congress completely changed. The Commerce Clause went from being a minimal doctrine allowing Congress to regulate roads, trains, transport, etc., to allowing Congress to effectively regulate anything and everything.
Do you know why Congress can regulate drugs? It goes back to Wickard. Abortion? Wickard. Marriage? Wickard (as later used to support expanding the taxing power). Guns? Wickard. Environmental issues? Wickard.
These are all SOCIAL issues, and they are inescapably intertwined with the expansion of the federal government. And the bloating of the federal government was a progressive feature. It was intentional. It was purposeful. It was to NATIONALIZE social issues, which is probably "social conservatives" biggest gripe.
Joe Blow in Kansas is not going to have the same opinion about abortion as Joe Blow in Connecticut. Betty Bob in Texas probably thinks differently about guns than Betty Bob in Maine. But now, because of the progressive's nationalizing of everything, they are compelled to largely follow the same policies.
THAT is the social conservative's objection -- that all of this was nationalized by progressives. And if you want to label this a "oh that's fiscal conservatism," you're not willing to have as serious dialogue.
In response to my pointing out that you are taking a logically impossible position in the way you are defining "social conservatives," you wrote:QuoteI'm specifically talking about social conservatism. I've mentioned several times . . . fiscal conservatism seems to be grounded in reason, and while I don't always agree with the conclusions reached from it's logic, there is certainly value to it.
Several posters -- Malkynn, me, BicycleB, and many others, wrote at length about how this is a logically impossible position. You simply cannot separate fiscal and social policies because they are completely intertwined.
This thread is the biggest straw man on this forum right now -- YOU and only YOU get to decide what a social conservative is, and now that you've created this straw man, anything that doesn't look exactly like YOUR straw man is NOT a social conservative, so AH HAH, you win.
It's a complete waste of time.
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.
This is a great post.
I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.
I think a great case in point is gay marriage. I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.
If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?
The line drawing can go on forever. What about polygamists? If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?
I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)QuoteThis Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics. I know you pretty much stated it as that in the beginning, but it's enabling you to look down on social conservatism and invalidate perspectives because of some issues that can occur when the views are tied into the political spectrum. Let me give a couple of examples. People have talked about the 60's - yay drugs, sexual revolution, all that jazz. Then responses come in like social conservatives weren't big fans of this stuff and were right. The responses then are, well, the war on drugs is really bad. Ok, so that has validity, but that's people supporting political stances on the drug issues. Social conservatism views of drugs are bad versus progressive perspective at the time of let's give it a whirl, it's all good.....well, no, there are actually genuine problems and we all would pretty much be better off if we didn't do drugs, even marijuana (except when truly used as medicine), if we didn't drink, etc. The social conservative perspective wasn't proven wrong. While, as you say, progressives now probably aren't promoting hard core drug usage, it's hard to argue that the progressive ideas of the time weren't much more pro-drug than the social conservative ideas of the time, and if the average person had chosen in their own lives to not hit up LSD that often, they probably would have better outcomes.
The political implications of regulating the things on a large scale weren't and haven't been very good, but for the conflict of perspectives, no, social conservatives aren't wrong. This line of thought was triggered off of a comment I believe you made on this thread (can't find it) that liberals don't want the government to make restrictions in people's bedrooms or something like that. Well, not all social conservatives want that from a governmental standpoint even if they disagree with the morality of certain issues. Case in point, I'm sure you can find many many Christians who don't believe in premarital sex genuinely in their belief system but don't want it made illegal. Social conservatives may believe that certain things are good ideas and not just for themselves but for others but still not want to force it on other people.
A thread of anti-marriage sentiment has been pretty progressive for awhile, and yet as one of my conservative friends pointed out, the stereotypical liberal elites that in philosophical terms tend to talk about marriage as outdated and unnecessary tend to get married, remain married, and reap the financial benefits of a stable household that comes from that. Social conservative positions supporting marriage tend to have benefits overall. I know you'll say, only marriage in certain situations, and you can pick apart parts of the argument that way, but again, it's not something that you can just generically say, social conservatives are flat out wrong on. Stable marriages have benefits, social conservatives are not wrong on this.
I think if this distinction is acknowledged, then hopefully you can acknowledge that no, social conservatives are not always wrong (or always wrong with the one exception of eugenics that I guess you've admitted too...?) and realize that you may be singling out political enforcement of social conservative viewpoints to enable you to disregard social conservatives as a whole, who you seem to be strongly opposed to, to the point that liberals on here think you're not willing to see the other side.
If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?
The line drawing can go on forever. What about polygamists? If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?
I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)QuoteThis Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.
Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married. But that's my belief. I don't want to force my beliefs on others.
Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married. But that's my belief. I don't want to force my beliefs on others.
Stable, healthy marriages are GREAT for kids.
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory.
http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2012/04/27/more-statistics-on-child-abuse-or-why-single-moms-should-probably-stay-that-way/
I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.
I think a great case in point is gay marriage. I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.
If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?
Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married. But that's my belief. I don't want to force my beliefs on others.
Stable, healthy marriages are GREAT for kids.
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory.
http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2012/04/27/more-statistics-on-child-abuse-or-why-single-moms-should-probably-stay-that-way/
Having two gay parents in a stable, healthy marriage is great for kids too.
Why then do people protest this? Or try to prevent kids in need of a family form being adopted by gay parents?
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory.
Homophobia and bigotry both certainly result in unfair situations. I don't believe that we should accept them as part of life though.
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.
This is a great post.
I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.
I think a great case in point is gay marriage. I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.
If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?
The line drawing can go on forever. What about polygamists? If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?
I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)QuoteThis Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.
Yes, many social conservatives think like that. I have heard many of them say it. But it's a logical fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope
One person's "nationalization of fundamental issues" is another person's "recognizing that it is unconstitutional to deny the same rights to all."
Those same arguments were made against allowing blacks and whites to marry. There are still people who believe miscegenation is "immoral and unethical."
Would you also agree that the "nationalization" of that particular fundamental issue is "utter crap"? Would you be comfortable with leaving the democratic process to decide whether a black/white couple are allowed to be treated like any other couple? Even knowing that the democratic process in that case might be decided by hateful racists for a very, very long time? Even if it's possible that even today it might still not be legal in certain states for a black/white couple to be married?
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.
This is a great post.
I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.
I think a great case in point is gay marriage. I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.
If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?
The line drawing can go on forever. What about polygamists? If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?
I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)QuoteThis Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).
Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.
Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.
Yes, many social conservatives think like that. I have heard many of them say it. But it's a logical fallacy.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope
One person's "nationalization of fundamental issues" is another person's "recognizing that it is unconstitutional to deny the same rights to all."
Those same arguments were made against allowing blacks and whites to marry. There are still people who believe miscegenation is "immoral and unethical."
Would you also agree that the "nationalization" of that particular fundamental issue is "utter crap"? Would you be comfortable with leaving the democratic process to decide whether a black/white couple are allowed to be treated like any other couple? Even knowing that the democratic process in that case might be decided by hateful racists for a very, very long time? Even if it's possible that even today it might still not be legal in certain states for a black/white couple to be married?
The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race was decided via a constitutional amendment (through the Constitution’s amendment process). The 14A squarely prohibits such discrimination, and SCOTUS was only enforcing what was already democratically enacted law.
To compare that with the how same sex marriage was nationalized (via a slim 5-4 Court majority) is, yes, utter crap.
You don’t get to dodge my point by yelling “SLIPPERY SLOPE.”
LOL. I believe there's research that backs it up, re: kids more likely to be abused by step-dads and boyfriends. So it's about the data, not about opinion here. This is more reason why it's important that women do not become so desperate that any man will suffice, people have to screen the people who their kids are around.
Children living with their married biological parents had the lowest levels of abuse and neglect:
http://www.center4research.org/child-abuse-father-figures-kind-families-safest-grow/
Maybe you should walk back your whining?
A limitation of this study is that the person doing the abusing or neglecting was not identified. Therefore, in homes with a stepfather or boyfriend, it is unclear whether the mother or surrogate father was abusing or neglecting the child.
Biological Parents (and Not Just Single Mothers) Mistreat Their Children, Too
A 2010 analysis of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) found that a majority (80%) of perpetrators—those responsible for the abuse and/or neglect of a child—in 2009 were parents.[4] Of these, 85% were the biological parents, 4% were stepparents, and 1% were adoptive parents. Four percent of perpetrators were the unmarried partners of the biological parent. Though the report did not gather data on whether the biological parent was the father or mother or whether the parent was a single head of household, the data do show that 45% of all perpetrators were male, while 54% were female (1% were unknown).
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory.
You can fuck right off with that sexist bullshit. ...
... People like you should not speak in public places. You can believe and endorse whatever flavor of archaic and ridiculous bigotry you like, in your own life, but if you're going to share that BS with the rest of us you can expect to be...
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory.
You can fuck right off with that sexist bullshit. ...
... People like you should not speak in public places. You can believe and endorse whatever flavor of archaic and ridiculous bigotry you like, in your own life, but if you're going to share that BS with the rest of us you can expect to be...
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.
The bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:
I particularly dislike the part about "people like you should not speak in public places." The shut-down-speech and you're-a-bad-person themes so common these days damage discourse.
Dr. Laura also said a lot about women not needing to be desperate for a man and to be choosy about finding a good man. She emphasized to women that if a man ever hits you or your kids, to leave, and to let the man know that rule, that no violence is ever OK. This is also good advice.
Women who follow the advice kbecks gave would stay in abusive marriages, just like they did in the 50s.I find it is usually more productive, though more difficult, to contend with what someone actually said, rather than some other stuff you made up. Many times in conversations, particularly online, I find that people aren't really arguing with what someone said, but with some vaguely similar stuff someone else said somewhere else years ago. They bolt together a Frankenstein's monster from a hodge-podge of various bits and pieces from many people over the years and use their lightning rage to imbue this simulacrum with some semblance of life. Again: yes, it is foolish to believe in some previous Golden Age, which invariably was never as "golden" as people imagine it, for whatever values of "golden" you arbitrarily decide.
The bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:
Yes, it totally does. And I knew that when I posted it.QuoteI particularly dislike the part about "people like you should not speak in public places." The shut-down-speech and you're-a-bad-person themes so common these days damage discourse.
That was not discourse, that was blatant sexism. I'm going to tell people like that to STFU, especially when they insult me while pretending to hold the moral high ground.
So-called "social conservatives" merely echo the widely discredited ideas of the 1950s for which they have so much nostalgia. News flash, the 1950s sucked balls. Women who follow the advice kbecks gave would stay in abusive marriages, just like they did in the 50s. And those views on blended families, regardless of the data, were presented wrong. You don't look at African American student test scores and then go on the internet and say "black people are stupid, just look so the data!". I'm not here to argue the data, I'm here to argue you are an ass for saying it.
You can officially consider me triggered. I've dealt with more abuse of more types than I care to count, and to hear someone accuse me if being an abuse risk because I chose to marry a divorced mother is horrifying. It disgusts me on multiple levels.
If the community finds my objections unacceptable, I will gladly accept moderation. I will not, however, allow self righteous self identified social conservatives to disparage or denigrate me, my gender, my marriage, or the trauma my kids have endured at the hands of their abusers. Not okay with me, kbecks.
Are you saying that when Kbecks wrote "The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory" it was so sexist that she should be told to STFU?
I don't even know if I should step into this, but there is more child abuse in situations when a mother is not with the father of her children. We can speculate on all the reasons why that may be true, but it doesn't change just because you are personally offended by it.
I don't even know if I should step into this, but there is more child abuse in situations when a mother is not with the father of her children. We can speculate on all the reasons why that may be true, but it doesn't change just because you are personally offended by it.
I'm not arguing the stats, I'm arguing you're an ass if you use those stats to support bigotry. It's easy to say ”most felons are black, therefore black people are criminals" but I think we all recognize that as textbook racism. You don't disparage the entire population of black people like that. You just don't. And if you decide to do it anyway, you're probably going to get called out for it.
A disproportionate percentage of convicted pedophiles were homosexuals, back in the 70s and 80s, and the gay community spent years fighting for their right to raise children while social conservatives argued it would be endangering children to let them live in a home with same-sex parents. You don't get away with saying "gays are pedos" anymore. But if you did say it, publicly for example in an internet forum, you might expect some well deserved push back.
If we want to talk about the factors that contribute to raising healthy happy kids, I'm all for it. But if you start that conversation with the assertion that only hetero married biological parents are fit to be parents, then I don't think we're going to get very far because your "social conservativism" makes you sound like an ass. We don't all get to choose to be hetero married biological parents, and we're all doing our best anyway. Consider trying to accept and support the world as it is, rather than how your grandparents told you it should be.
In my extended family, there are occurrences of sexual abuse by a biological father, and physical abuse by a step mother. There are also several step fathers, myself included, who are trying to pick up the pieces of that havoc while society casts a disproving eye upon their efforts to raise a family. Kbecks piling on isn't helping. Like many social conservatives, his/her efforts to improve society are instead tearing it apart.
In my city, we have a population of homeless gay youth. Many of them were tossed out by their socially conservative parents, who refused to accept their sexuality and literally pushed their own kids into drug dealing and prostitution to survive. That's the kind of inadvertent hypocrisy I see with social conservatives, trying to take a stand on these issues by making zero tolerance declarations that only make the problems worse instead of better. If you support healthy families, you have to start by supporting your own kids. If you oppose drugs and prostitution, don't yank your financial support away from people who have no other options to make money. I think partgypsy's analysis above is pretty good; social conservatives are so stuck in the past that they cause some of the very problems they are trying to solve. It's true with families, with crime, with sexism, with abortion, and apparently with basic ethical integrity, when it comes to presidential candidates.
SOL, why do you think children with a surrogate father in their home are abused and neglected 8 to 10 times more often than children who live with two bio parents?
Homophobia and bigotry both certainly result in unfair situations. I don't believe that we should accept them as part of life though.
But are you saying that a birth mom should have no say in who their child is adopted by?
That's just not how it works. Most domestic newborn adoptions are open and the mother has a lot of say in choosing who the baby's new parents will be. It seems likely that more conservative and religious women choose not to abort and place a child for adoption, and that seems incongruent with choosing a homosexual couple, especially if an equally attractive heterosexual couple is also seeking to adopt.
Liberal women seem more likely to abort their unwanted fetuses.
RE: a birth mother's choice. I think it is always her choice.
I tend to think that most people are not hateful bigots.
Are you saying that when Kbecks wrote "The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory" it was so sexist that she should be told to STFU?
This was an argument about defending traditional marriage by suggesting that divorce is problematic specifically because men who marry divorced mothers are more likely to abuse children.
You don't say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because gay people are pedophiles. You don't say white people shouldn't marry black people because black people are criminals. And you don't say single mothers shouldn't remarry because new husbands are child abusers (unless you're kbecks). It's just a terrible thing to say. I absolutely can and will tell people like that to stfu, their bigotry is not welcome in polite society. And if the forum moderators have a problem with it, they are free to speak up in defense of bigotry.
I'm all for healthy discussion, but that was not a discussion it all, it was strictly a disparaging comment about an entire subset of the population, based on sexist attitudes that appear to be common to self-identified "social conservatives". I have no problem with discussing the root causes of child abuse, just like I have no problem discussing the root causes of pedophilia or crime in general. I do not find it socially acceptable, however, to preface that discussion with a sweeping generalizations about an entire class of people you deem morally unfit because of your bigoted assumptions. If you want to talk about sexual assault, you don't start out with "Mexicans are rapists." If you want to talk about poverty you don't start out with "black people are lazy."
This seems pretty common to conservatives in general, though. They have been raised to endorse a very specific set of outdated beliefs, and they will argue and attack people based on that bigotry even while claiming to be the ones trying to improve society, and their hypocrisy is outrageously transparent. If you really wanted children to be raised in loving and supportive families, you would support women who leave abusive marriages to find better relationships in which to raise their kids, not argue that women should avoid divorce at all costs. And you certainly wouldn't disparage the men who voluntarily assume the burden of raising someone else's kids. Saying "new boyfriends and step dads in particular can be abusive and predatory (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/are-social-conservatives-always-wrong/msg2405278/#msg2405278)" is not any different than saying "single mothers and unwed mothers in particular are unfit to raise children." It's just an ugly thing to say about someone involuntarily stuck with a bad situation, especially when you know that your audience includes many such people and you decide to insult them right to their faces anyway. It's such jerk move that I can't believe I even have to argue that we should condemn it.
So a mother has to choose a homosexual couple to adopt their child in order not to be a hateful bigot? Ridiculous. There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.
When the psychoanalyst writes to a patient, “The submerged instincts of the cave-man are doubtless prompting you to gratify a violent impulse,’ he does not refer to the impulse to paint in water-colors; or to make conscientious studies of how cattle swing their heads when they graze. Yet we do know for a fact that the cave-man did these mild and innocent things and we have not the most minute speck of evidence that he did any of the violent and ferocious things.
the belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.
a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.
It would be useful to remind ourselves of the original values of conservatism and liberalism, and remember that we are all citizens of the same nation whether we call ourselves conservative or liberals, republicans or democrats.
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics. I know you pretty much stated it as that in the beginning, but it's enabling you to look down on social conservatism and invalidate perspectives because of some issues that can occur when the views are tied into the political spectrum. Let me give a couple of examples. People have talked about the 60's - yay drugs, sexual revolution, all that jazz. Then responses come in like social conservatives weren't big fans of this stuff and were right. The responses then are, well, the war on drugs is really bad. Ok, so that has validity, but that's people supporting political stances on the drug issues. Social conservatism views of drugs are bad versus progressive perspective at the time of let's give it a whirl, it's all good.....well, no, there are actually genuine problems and we all would pretty much be better off if we didn't do drugs, even marijuana (except when truly used as medicine), if we didn't drink, etc. The social conservative perspective wasn't proven wrong. While, as you say, progressives now probably aren't promoting hard core drug usage, it's hard to argue that the progressive ideas of the time weren't much more pro-drug than the social conservative ideas of the time, and if the average person had chosen in their own lives to not hit up LSD that often, they probably would have better outcomes.
I'd argue that perspective doesn't matte as much as actions. Making drugs illegal is a socially conservative reaction to a point of view. But the point of view that drugs are generally bad for people, is that really socially conservative?
For example, I'm for legalization of marijuana even though I've never tried it and have no real plans to do so in the future. As you said, drug use probably doesn't lead to better outcomes (at least that is my perspecive). Does that mean that I'm socially conservative?The political implications of regulating the things on a large scale weren't and haven't been very good, but for the conflict of perspectives, no, social conservatives aren't wrong. This line of thought was triggered off of a comment I believe you made on this thread (can't find it) that liberals don't want the government to make restrictions in people's bedrooms or something like that. Well, not all social conservatives want that from a governmental standpoint even if they disagree with the morality of certain issues. Case in point, I'm sure you can find many many Christians who don't believe in premarital sex genuinely in their belief system but don't want it made illegal. Social conservatives may believe that certain things are good ideas and not just for themselves but for others but still not want to force it on other people.
It's in the 'forcing it on other people' part that my concern lies with social conservatism. I've got no issue with what you believe in your heart of hearts . . . it's only when you act upon it in a way that hurts others that we'll end up in a fight.A thread of anti-marriage sentiment has been pretty progressive for awhile, and yet as one of my conservative friends pointed out, the stereotypical liberal elites that in philosophical terms tend to talk about marriage as outdated and unnecessary tend to get married, remain married, and reap the financial benefits of a stable household that comes from that. Social conservative positions supporting marriage tend to have benefits overall. I know you'll say, only marriage in certain situations, and you can pick apart parts of the argument that way, but again, it's not something that you can just generically say, social conservatives are flat out wrong on. Stable marriages have benefits, social conservatives are not wrong on this.
Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married. But that's my belief. I don't want to force my beliefs on others. What's true for me is not necessarily true for everyone else. Stable marriages have benefits - agreed (mine certainly does). But bad, unstable marriages do not have those benefits (my parents certainly did not - which is why they eventually divorced). The only people who can decide what is best in a relationship are the two people in the relationship.
My problem is not with the viewpoint that stable marriages have benefits! Multiple opinions and viewpoints are great, and debate benefits us all by helping us to consider a problem from all angles. It's when that idea becomes action, forced upon others that I have a problem. The modern social conservative movement seems largely based around forceful enactment of these viewpoints. Each of the social conservative issues I listed is one that is a problem because of the actions that social conservatives are supporting which force others to comply with their wishes.I think if this distinction is acknowledged, then hopefully you can acknowledge that no, social conservatives are not always wrong (or always wrong with the one exception of eugenics that I guess you've admitted too...?) and realize that you may be singling out political enforcement of social conservative viewpoints to enable you to disregard social conservatives as a whole, who you seem to be strongly opposed to, to the point that liberals on here think you're not willing to see the other side.
Sure. As mentioned, I personally share the 'socially conservative' viewpoints you've outlined here . . . I obviously don't think that they're wrong.
And I'm ever mindful that I am a person who sits, via my computer, in what is alternatively a global classroom, global marketplace of ideas, and global court of public opinion.
We're foolish to be fighting amongst ourselves while authoritarian
world powers are struggling to supplant the democratic order that we've build over the last 200 years.
It would be useful to remind ourselves of the original values of conservatism and liberalism, and remember that we are all
citizens of the same nation whether we call ourselves conservative or liberals, republicans or democrats.
Back to the thread topic, social conservatism is defined asQuotethe belief that society is built upon a fragile network of relationships which need to be upheld through duty, traditional values and established institutions.
whereas liberalism isQuotea political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law.
These belief systems are not incompatible, and it is hard to argue that either one is often wrong, let alone always wrong.
Do any of us really believe that our politicians are effectively representing conservatism or liberalism?
Are you saying that when Kbecks wrote "The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory" it was so sexist that she should be told to STFU?
This was an argument about defending traditional marriage by suggesting that divorce is problematic specifically because men who marry divorced mothers are more likely to abuse children.
You don't say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because gay people are pedophiles. You don't say white people shouldn't marry black people because black people are criminals. And you don't say single mothers shouldn't remarry because new husbands are child abusers (unless you're kbecks). It's just a terrible thing to say. I absolutely can and will tell people like that to stfu, their bigotry is not welcome in polite society. And if the forum moderators have a problem with it, they are free to speak up in defense of bigotry.
Saying "new boyfriends and step dads in particular can be abusive and predatory" is not any different than saying "single mothers and unwed mothers in particular are unfit to raise children."
@BicycleB Thank you.
@BicycleB Thank you.
I think you were right when you said “ There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.” The premise here is that social conservatives are are always wrong.
You are nicer than I would be.
@BicycleB Thank you.
I think you were right when you said “ There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.” The premise here is that social conservatives are are always wrong.
You are nicer than I would be.
I'm not going to come out for or against pornography because I don't know enough. But I think it's interesting that some people can become addicted to pornography, to the extent it very much negatively affects their personal (relationships) and sexual lives. Some celebrities have come out about it (Pamela Anderson is another) https://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/how-terry-crews-battled-and-eventually-overcame-his-pornography-addiction/@BicycleB Thank you.
I think you were right when you said “ There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.” The premise here is that social conservatives are are always wrong.
You are nicer than I would be.
Thanks. I feel bad that Sol was triggered and flipped out.
I think the conversation about how pornography hurts women and men is an interesting one. One concern about pornography is that it becomes more and more and more extreme and deviant, and that causes problems for people -- the actors (STDs and risky sex, as just one example), and the audiences (distorted expectations of reality). If we toss in underage porn and human trafficking, it just gets worse.
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics. I know you pretty much stated it as that in the beginning, but it's enabling you to look down on social conservatism and invalidate perspectives because of some issues that can occur when the views are tied into the political spectrum. Let me give a couple of examples. People have talked about the 60's - yay drugs, sexual revolution, all that jazz. Then responses come in like social conservatives weren't big fans of this stuff and were right. The responses then are, well, the war on drugs is really bad. Ok, so that has validity, but that's people supporting political stances on the drug issues. Social conservatism views of drugs are bad versus progressive perspective at the time of let's give it a whirl, it's all good.....well, no, there are actually genuine problems and we all would pretty much be better off if we didn't do drugs, even marijuana (except when truly used as medicine), if we didn't drink, etc. The social conservative perspective wasn't proven wrong. While, as you say, progressives now probably aren't promoting hard core drug usage, it's hard to argue that the progressive ideas of the time weren't much more pro-drug than the social conservative ideas of the time, and if the average person had chosen in their own lives to not hit up LSD that often, they probably would have better outcomes.
I'd argue that perspective doesn't matte as much as actions. Making drugs illegal is a socially conservative reaction to a point of view. But the point of view that drugs are generally bad for people, is that really socially conservative?
For example, I'm for legalization of marijuana even though I've never tried it and have no real plans to do so in the future. As you said, drug use probably doesn't lead to better outcomes (at least that is my perspecive). Does that mean that I'm socially conservative?The political implications of regulating the things on a large scale weren't and haven't been very good, but for the conflict of perspectives, no, social conservatives aren't wrong. This line of thought was triggered off of a comment I believe you made on this thread (can't find it) that liberals don't want the government to make restrictions in people's bedrooms or something like that. Well, not all social conservatives want that from a governmental standpoint even if they disagree with the morality of certain issues. Case in point, I'm sure you can find many many Christians who don't believe in premarital sex genuinely in their belief system but don't want it made illegal. Social conservatives may believe that certain things are good ideas and not just for themselves but for others but still not want to force it on other people.
It's in the 'forcing it on other people' part that my concern lies with social conservatism. I've got no issue with what you believe in your heart of hearts . . . it's only when you act upon it in a way that hurts others that we'll end up in a fight.A thread of anti-marriage sentiment has been pretty progressive for awhile, and yet as one of my conservative friends pointed out, the stereotypical liberal elites that in philosophical terms tend to talk about marriage as outdated and unnecessary tend to get married, remain married, and reap the financial benefits of a stable household that comes from that. Social conservative positions supporting marriage tend to have benefits overall. I know you'll say, only marriage in certain situations, and you can pick apart parts of the argument that way, but again, it's not something that you can just generically say, social conservatives are flat out wrong on. Stable marriages have benefits, social conservatives are not wrong on this.
Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married. But that's my belief. I don't want to force my beliefs on others. What's true for me is not necessarily true for everyone else. Stable marriages have benefits - agreed (mine certainly does). But bad, unstable marriages do not have those benefits (my parents certainly did not - which is why they eventually divorced). The only people who can decide what is best in a relationship are the two people in the relationship.
My problem is not with the viewpoint that stable marriages have benefits! Multiple opinions and viewpoints are great, and debate benefits us all by helping us to consider a problem from all angles. It's when that idea becomes action, forced upon others that I have a problem. The modern social conservative movement seems largely based around forceful enactment of these viewpoints. Each of the social conservative issues I listed is one that is a problem because of the actions that social conservatives are supporting which force others to comply with their wishes.I think if this distinction is acknowledged, then hopefully you can acknowledge that no, social conservatives are not always wrong (or always wrong with the one exception of eugenics that I guess you've admitted too...?) and realize that you may be singling out political enforcement of social conservative viewpoints to enable you to disregard social conservatives as a whole, who you seem to be strongly opposed to, to the point that liberals on here think you're not willing to see the other side.
Sure. As mentioned, I personally share the 'socially conservative' viewpoints you've outlined here . . . I obviously don't think that they're wrong.
C'mon man. Your arguments here are along the lines of people saying, I'll never be Democrat because Democrats supported the KKK. If we can't talk about things in the context with which they actually happened, what is the point of this discussion in general? So no, I'm not saying you're a social conservative, nor did I ever. I don't really care what your views are on drugs in regards to this conversation because you're not in the era I specifically mentioned. The point is, if we're talking about social conservatives being right or wrong, we have to talk about the specific era where the issue was. Am I a guaranteed social liberal now because I am 100% against slavery. No, of course not. The point is, being much more pro drug was a socially liberal position in the 60's. Being against that was a pretty much social conservative position in the 60's. Social conservative position of pushing back against drug use was not wrong. It was the correct perspective even if the enforcement of it was wrong.
Pro marriage is/was the same thing. I've never heard a social progressive person promote marriage on any kind of platform with the exception of promoting allowance of gay marriage. Now that that's been accomplished, it's a non starter from any progressive I've heard.
If social conservatives have too limited of a view of marriage for you, that's fine. They still are promoting it. Social progressives are neutral at best, to neutral with some mockery of it, to strong emphasis that it's outdated at the more extreme. Promoting stable marriages as at least generally good is certainly not something that's wrong. Again, going back to my friend's quote, more wealthy liberal elites may talk about how marriage is outdated but they tend to get married, stay married more, with positive results for themselves financially, for their kids, etc. Social conservatives are not wrong on this.
I thought up another one in the mean time, and this one is evolving as we speak. Social conservatives have been against pornography for a good long time. Social liberals were either neutral on it or promoted it as something to liberate women or whatever arguments they were. Social liberals in some circles are now backtracking, realizing that it comes part in parcel with objectification of women, certainly promotes unrealistic expectations in generations of men...it literally alters the brain in people that look at it. Not only were social conservatives opposing pornography well before this new take, many of their reasons lined up with the reasons now being put forth by social liberals. Trust me, I have been raised hearing these things over a decade before I've seen any of these articles about them - watching porn affects you more than the momentary act of doing it, it changes how you see women, etc. Social conservatives were/are not wrong on this.
I agree that the dynamic changes when the perspectives are enforced by government force on either side (someone anti gun who would never own one versus full on gun control of everyone). We can have a discussion about social conservative perspectives that have become law. I'd need to think on it because it wouldn't be as easy of an argument, of course. First, though, I'd like you to admit that we've now given you multiple situations where social conservatives' perspectives weren't wrong which was at least part of your initial question.
There appears to be something wrong with your generalizations of 'progressives' (which, again, I'm assuming you're using in place of liberal).Likewise with the generalisations of conservatives.
There appears to be something wrong with your generalizations of 'progressives'.This is the most ironic sentence I have ever seen written on this forum. Probably by a factor of ten. I am staggered.
It's almost as if we were all human beings, or something.
Sure. Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit. There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong. I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head. In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong. Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to. It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem. I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.
Sure. Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit. There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong. I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head. In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong. Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to. It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem. I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.
So the appropriate title would be -- are social conservative laws always wrong?
I wonder what you think about social conservatives who share their ideas with others? I have a friend who does pro-life sidewalk counseling, for example.
Sure. Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit. There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong. I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head. In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong. Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to. It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem. I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.
So the appropriate title would be -- are social conservative laws always wrong?
I wonder what you think about social conservatives who share their ideas with others? I have a friend who does pro-life sidewalk counseling, for example.
Sure. Thought I had done this in the previous post, but I'll be more explicit. There are multiple situations where social conservatives perspectives aren't wrong. I don't care at all about thoughts you hold in your head. In fact, nobody's perspective is ever wrong. Everyone should be free to look at a problem from any way that they want to. It's when those thoughts leave your head and start impacting others that they can start to be a problem. I suppose that social conservative implementation is more what I was trying to discuss in this thread.
I'm thinking back through history at causes that social conservatives have supported . . . slavery, prohibition, the war on drugs, etc. and then thinking back at all the things that they've opposed . . . democracy, women's rights, civil rights, gay rights, interracial marriage, immigration, freedom of religion, clothing to wear, etc.
Despite the furor, social conservatives historically always lose in the end . . . but often they manage to cause a lot of pain and suffering before they finally do capitulate. So what exactly is the draw to the movement? What are it's long term goals?
Also, I am sorry for hurting your feelings.
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed; no one has come to cut out my tongue.
You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. I did not mean it that way.
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed; no one has come to cut out my tongue.
You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. I did not mean it that way.
Your statement may not only apply to women who bring another man into the household, but also men who bring another woman in.
My father remarried, and while I wouldn't qualify my treatment from my stepmother as abuse, I was definitely not as well treated by her as my stepsisters were by my father, to the point where it became a very toxic household, and our relationship today is tenuous at best.
As has been stated, it's something my father should have considered prior to going into the relationship. I think he probably regrets the way things turned out, but he is still married to her, so maybe not.
^Were you to consistently believe there's a bigger offense than people actually did, and then consistently make unfair attacks on them, perhaps it would be better without. But you don’t. (In the post above, you make negative speculation on her motives, assuming Kbecks is lying. That's an ad hominem attack, which violates forum rules. @sol, think of this: If she is telling the truth, wouldn't she logically say exactly the things she is already saying?)
But most of the time, you offer a range of thoughtful remarks, cogent analysis, hilarious yet accurate comments, and thoughtful explorations of Mustachianism, including your personal testimony now that you've reached FIRE. Hopefully you'll return to the positive contributions soon enough.
Incidentally, I can see room for continued discussion of whether Kbecks's disputed remark was sexist, and some related remarks as well. It just should be reasoned discussion on a fair basis. My guess is that about 80% of what you think she meant, she didn't mean; her remarks as written leave open the possibility that she didn't mean it, you just are in a mode where you only look at the most negative possible interpretation; and if you ever feel less triggered, you'll contribute valuable thoughts in discussing the other 20%. Take care. I hope to see you around.
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/QuoteUnfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.
Rings quite true in this thread.
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed; no one has come to cut out my tongue.
You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. I did not mean it that way.
Your statement may not only apply to women who bring another man into the household, but also men who bring another woman in.
My father remarried, and while I wouldn't qualify my treatment from my stepmother as abuse, I was definitely not as well treated by her as my stepsisters were by my father, to the point where it became a very toxic household, and our relationship today is tenuous at best.
As has been stated, it's something my father should have considered prior to going into the relationship. I think he probably regrets the way things turned out, but he is still married to her, so maybe not.
This brings the question, Sol feels I am sexist. Is that the only proof needed
nowadays? The offended are automatically correct?
I apologized, and he feels it is not genuine. Does that make it so?
Residential schools were certainly not liberal. They started in Canada as early as the 17th century, were administered universally by Christian missionaries. They were borne of the imperial colonial concept of cultural superiority, and a percieved need to save 'savages' from themselves. Their goal was to 'civilize' native peoples by forcing them to become Christian and denying them their culture. There were a great many prominent social conservatives involved in the residential school system.I didn't say liberal, I said progressive, and it appears to me not that far off of some ideas like implicit bias, which is full of its own flaws.
Bloodletting - this was not a 'progressive' treatment, nor was it related to social liberals. For an awful long time it was the most popular and generally accepted medical treatment for various ailments. It's what a doctor did when you were sick - not because he felt a social need for cutting edge bloodletting treatment, but because that's what people believed would heal you. You mention 'quickly discarded', but that's also wrong. The idea of bloodletting was around for generations before we learned better.Never said anything about social liberals, again. And it was quickly discarded once it was discovered to be useless, although that occurred during a more general increase in reason and science so it's a bit more complicated. But what I mean by "discarded" is that doctors are not continually reminded of their follies when it came to bloodletting, so this is an indication of how some progressive ideas are rightfully understood to be "ideas that seemed good at the time" but we don't do them anymore, and we don't harangue the people that used to practice them as they exist today.
Electroshock therapy and experimental lobotomies fall under the 'bad science' umbrella of psychology. As a pseudoscience, there has been (and continues to be) a lot of bad and unscientific work done. Again, I'm not sure that either of these 'treatments' really amount to an example of social liberalism at all. I think you would have a much stronger case if you were talking about the LSD experiments performed on mental patients in the '60s, as there was much more social theory at play in that instance. That was more strongly tied to the growing social acceptance of drugs in general (and hallucinogens in particular) of the time than even the loosely defined pseudoscience that is psychology.Why do you insist on conflating social liberalism with progressivism? Progressive ideas don't have a political bent although they do align more frequently with the left side. Or perhaps it's the other way around.
When communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many. Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication. Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.
I didn't read further back in the thread(too many words) so I can't comment on that, but you have brought up an interesting idea. I generally side with "intent matters" more so than how things are perceived, probably due to my low agreeableness, and I think good faith should be yielded to someone making statements, but there's a strong pragmatic argument that says that people act on what they hear so maybe we should focus more on that... I don't have the answer.QuoteWhen communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many. Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication. Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.
This was very well said, and as many things go...it's tricky.
Many people don't LISTEN these days. Or maybe it's just my office. People listen ONLY to argue and make their own point. They don't actually actively listen, asking questions, seeking to understand. I seem to spend a LOT of my time in meetings "translating" and facilitating. If you'd told me back in engineering school that it would happen that way...
So, problems arise when someone hears the first part of what you say, cuts you off, and then disagrees - never letting you finish. Other problems occur when people take what you say or read without seeking to understand.
The blame goes both ways - both on people who don't listen (right now I'm thinking of my 13 year old child...), and on people who maybe are cryptic and don't think about how what they are saying is going to come across.
We've had racist and sexist people on these boards who insisted that they weren't...when many others here said "well, if it walks like a duck"... I haven't seen that in the recent posts in this thread however.
I need to figure out if I need to apologize to Sol more. Clearly he thinks that I am sexist, and probably racist and homophobic too. I have to grapple with how I have become such a terrible person.
I need to figure out if I need to apologize to Sol more. Clearly he thinks that I am sexist, and probably racist and homophobic too. I have to grapple with how I have become such a terrible person.
Or better yet, you both just drop it?
I need to figure out if I need to apologize to Sol more. Clearly he thinks that I am sexist, and probably racist and homophobic too. I have to grapple with how I have become such a terrible person.
Or better yet, you both just drop it?
The first apology was sincere. Now, what's the point?
I think that Sol naming me in his sig line counts as being a jerk, btw.
One question - since Sol has flouted the forum rules and said he expects to be banned, etc. etc. Has he received a warning or other action for this thread?
Residential schools were certainly not liberal. They started in Canada as early as the 17th century, were administered universally by Christian missionaries. They were borne of the imperial colonial concept of cultural superiority, and a percieved need to save 'savages' from themselves. Their goal was to 'civilize' native peoples by forcing them to become Christian and denying them their culture. There were a great many prominent social conservatives involved in the residential school system.I didn't say liberal, I said progressive, and it appears to me not that far off of some ideas like implicit bias, which is full of its own flaws.QuoteBloodletting - this was not a 'progressive' treatment, nor was it related to social liberals. For an awful long time it was the most popular and generally accepted medical treatment for various ailments. It's what a doctor did when you were sick - not because he felt a social need for cutting edge bloodletting treatment, but because that's what people believed would heal you. You mention 'quickly discarded', but that's also wrong. The idea of bloodletting was around for generations before we learned better.Never said anything about social liberals, again. And it was quickly discarded once it was discovered to be useless, although that occurred during a more general increase in reason and science so it's a bit more complicated. But what I mean by "discarded" is that doctors are not continually reminded of their follies when it came to bloodletting, so this is an indication of how some progressive ideas are rightfully understood to be "ideas that seemed good at the time" but we don't do them anymore, and we don't harangue the people that used to practice them as they exist today.QuoteElectroshock therapy and experimental lobotomies fall under the 'bad science' umbrella of psychology. As a pseudoscience, there has been (and continues to be) a lot of bad and unscientific work done. Again, I'm not sure that either of these 'treatments' really amount to an example of social liberalism at all. I think you would have a much stronger case if you were talking about the LSD experiments performed on mental patients in the '60s, as there was much more social theory at play in that instance. That was more strongly tied to the growing social acceptance of drugs in general (and hallucinogens in particular) of the time than even the loosely defined pseudoscience that is psychology.Why do you insist on conflating social liberalism with progressivism? Progressive ideas don't have a political bent although they do align more frequently with the left side. Or perhaps it's the other way around.
I didn't read further back in the thread(too many words) so I can't comment on that, but you have brought up an interesting idea. I generally side with "intent matters" more so than how things are perceived, probably due to my low agreeableness, and I think good faith should be yielded to someone making statements, but there's a strong pragmatic argument that says that people act on what they hear so maybe we should focus more on that... I don't have the answer.QuoteWhen communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many. Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication. Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.
This was very well said, and as many things go...it's tricky.
Many people don't LISTEN these days. Or maybe it's just my office. People listen ONLY to argue and make their own point. They don't actually actively listen, asking questions, seeking to understand. I seem to spend a LOT of my time in meetings "translating" and facilitating. If you'd told me back in engineering school that it would happen that way...
So, problems arise when someone hears the first part of what you say, cuts you off, and then disagrees - never letting you finish. Other problems occur when people take what you say or read without seeking to understand.
The blame goes both ways - both on people who don't listen (right now I'm thinking of my 13 year old child...), and on people who maybe are cryptic and don't think about how what they are saying is going to come across.
We've had racist and sexist people on these boards who insisted that they weren't...when many others here said "well, if it walks like a duck"... I haven't seen that in the recent posts in this thread however.
Residential schools were certainly not liberal. They started in Canada as early as the 17th century, were administered universally by Christian missionaries. They were borne of the imperial colonial concept of cultural superiority, and a percieved need to save 'savages' from themselves. Their goal was to 'civilize' native peoples by forcing them to become Christian and denying them their culture. There were a great many prominent social conservatives involved in the residential school system.I didn't say liberal, I said progressive, and it appears to me not that far off of some ideas like implicit bias, which is full of its own flaws.QuoteBloodletting - this was not a 'progressive' treatment, nor was it related to social liberals. For an awful long time it was the most popular and generally accepted medical treatment for various ailments. It's what a doctor did when you were sick - not because he felt a social need for cutting edge bloodletting treatment, but because that's what people believed would heal you. You mention 'quickly discarded', but that's also wrong. The idea of bloodletting was around for generations before we learned better.Never said anything about social liberals, again. And it was quickly discarded once it was discovered to be useless, although that occurred during a more general increase in reason and science so it's a bit more complicated. But what I mean by "discarded" is that doctors are not continually reminded of their follies when it came to bloodletting, so this is an indication of how some progressive ideas are rightfully understood to be "ideas that seemed good at the time" but we don't do them anymore, and we don't harangue the people that used to practice them as they exist today.QuoteElectroshock therapy and experimental lobotomies fall under the 'bad science' umbrella of psychology. As a pseudoscience, there has been (and continues to be) a lot of bad and unscientific work done. Again, I'm not sure that either of these 'treatments' really amount to an example of social liberalism at all. I think you would have a much stronger case if you were talking about the LSD experiments performed on mental patients in the '60s, as there was much more social theory at play in that instance. That was more strongly tied to the growing social acceptance of drugs in general (and hallucinogens in particular) of the time than even the loosely defined pseudoscience that is psychology.Why do you insist on conflating social liberalism with progressivism? Progressive ideas don't have a political bent although they do align more frequently with the left side. Or perhaps it's the other way around.
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.
I didn't read further back in the thread(too many words) so I can't comment on that, but you have brought up an interesting idea. I generally side with "intent matters" more so than how things are perceived, probably due to my low agreeableness, and I think good faith should be yielded to someone making statements, but there's a strong pragmatic argument that says that people act on what they hear so maybe we should focus more on that... I don't have the answer.QuoteWhen communicating with others, the message that you intend to send is only one consideration of many. Another important consideration is how the message is/will be recieved by the audience (unintended audience members included) of said communication. Not all audience members will seek further clarification which may mean that you are inadvertently promoting a message that you don't actually agree with.
This was very well said, and as many things go...it's tricky.
Many people don't LISTEN these days. Or maybe it's just my office. People listen ONLY to argue and make their own point. They don't actually actively listen, asking questions, seeking to understand. I seem to spend a LOT of my time in meetings "translating" and facilitating. If you'd told me back in engineering school that it would happen that way...
So, problems arise when someone hears the first part of what you say, cuts you off, and then disagrees - never letting you finish. Other problems occur when people take what you say or read without seeking to understand.
The blame goes both ways - both on people who don't listen (right now I'm thinking of my 13 year old child...), and on people who maybe are cryptic and don't think about how what they are saying is going to come across.
We've had racist and sexist people on these boards who insisted that they weren't...when many others here said "well, if it walks like a duck"... I haven't seen that in the recent posts in this thread however.
Personally, I think it is my responsibility to assume good faith on the part of others and would generally counsel my friends to do the same. But I don't expect others (particularly those I do not know well) to do the same, so I also think it is my responsibility to tailor my words not to offend to the best of my ability. If I do say something that offends others, I think it's my responsibility to figure out why they received a message that I wasn't intending to send so that I can better tailor my messages in the future to avoid the same mistake if possible. I view it this way because 1) I like taking personal responsibility for as much of my own life as I reasonably can (I guess because it makes me feel more in control of my life), 2) I think the primary purpose of speaking is to communicate a message, so if I'm going to be speaking I want the message received to match the message I intended to send as closely as possible and 3) I'm also just not in the least interested in allowing those who do have malicious intent to use my poorly stated message to make others think that their beliefs are more widespread than they are.
I also just don't like placing responsibilities like 'assuming good intent' on those that I'm not close to. Once you know me and I've done enough to reasonably earn your trust, sure. For strangers/random people on the internet though, I don't know their history. They may have a very good reason for not having that kind of trust and I think the best way to help others gain that kind of trust is to listen to them and try to understand their perspective.
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
The conservatives under Joe Clark were quite a different party than the modern day version of the Conservative party in Canada. I probably would have voted for them from time to time. :P
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming? Conservative/liberal/progressive? Definitely not libertarian, anyway.
How about the integration of Islam into secular western society? That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia. (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)
Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.
Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you. But I do find this subject fascinating.
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming? Conservative/liberal/progressive? Definitely not libertarian, anyway.
How about the integration of Islam into secular western society? That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia. (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)
Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.
Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you. But I do find this subject fascinating.
I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming? Conservative/liberal/progressive? Definitely not libertarian, anyway.
How about the integration of Islam into secular western society? That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia. (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)
Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.
Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you. But I do find this subject fascinating.
I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.
Yeah, I’m American and fairly left-leaning, and fail to see how those are “conservative” ideas.
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming? Conservative/liberal/progressive? Definitely not libertarian, anyway.
How about the integration of Islam into secular western society? That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia. (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)
Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.
Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you. But I do find this subject fascinating.
I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming? Conservative/liberal/progressive? Definitely not libertarian, anyway.
How about the integration of Islam into secular western society? That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia. (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)
Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.
Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you. But I do find this subject fascinating.
I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.
Yeah, I’m American and fairly left-leaning, and fail to see how those are “conservative” ideas.
Maybe the military one. Can't say it's a liberal position, but I do know at least a subset of liberals that come pretty close if not all the way to wanting to eliminate all military or at least it seems like it from their comments.
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
Your characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
I'd say "government sex education" is kind of a scare-tactic term.
That said, research suggests that comprehensive sex education actually is effective. So I'm not sure why conservatives would think this.
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
I'd say "government sex education" is kind of a scare-tactic term.
That said, research suggests that comprehensive sex education actually is effective. So I'm not sure why conservatives would think this.
I don’t know what the study/ studies looked at in determining “comprehensive sex education” but if truly comprehensive, it would very much include teachings in the home of children.
Biological facts taught in school i.e. the government are fine but they don’t go far enough to provide effective life lessons, and there are nuances to just the biological facts that might be in violation of some values.
My position that is if parents aren’t doing the job then they doing their children a disservice.
Counting on the government to do this job is shirking their parental duty.
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
The topic of conversation was social conservatism. The inverse of social conservatism is social liberalism. I didn't follow that you were talking about a third tangential topic (progressivism). Based on previous conversations in this thread I've actually been mentally conflating 'liberal' with 'progressive' as they've been used interchangeably. My apologies.No need to apologize! I'm still a bit confused though. Progressive ideas tend to align with liberals(not to be conflated with libertarians) but not always. So I think it follows that social conservatives are not always wrong.
I was thinking about this today.... what are your thoughts on deplatforming? Conservative/liberal/progressive? Definitely not libertarian, anyway.
How about the integration of Islam into secular western society? That one's really interesting, because #coexist is usually promoted by progressives, yet the embodiment of Islam can be very...traditional and conservative, what with the covered women and the segregated mosques and women only recently being able to drive in Saudi Arabia. (Kind of ironic that some hardline Christians don't like Muslims)
Here are some socially conservative ideas that seem to stand the test of time:
Having a military
Having federal borders
Having pride in your country
Improving your lot in life through work and sacrifice
...Those were just off the top of my head.
Also it's very likely I'm misinterpreting you. But I do find this subject fascinating.
I'm liberal by Canadian standards and all of those are also liberal values.
Yeah, I’m American and fairly left-leaning, and fail to see how those are “conservative” ideas.
Maybe the military one. Can't say it's a liberal position, but I do know at least a subset of liberals that come pretty close if not all the way to wanting to eliminate all military or at least it seems like it from their comments.
I feel like you may be misunderstanding their source of concern.
It's true that there's less support for the military when it's used to conquer and destabilize other countries, execute civilians by drone, kidnap civilians from other countries and hold them without any hope of a fair trial, support and entrench the power of known pedophiles in foreign countries, or run illegal torture facilities. Currently, the US military is an organization that should rightfully be steeped in dishonor and shame. Not because every member of it is a horrible person (or because a military is inherently bad), but because of how American has chosen to use it's force.
Many (if not most) social liberals are fans of using the military for humanitarian aid and peacekeeping missions though. The problem is usually not the military, but the goals the military is used to achieve.
...snip
Maybe the military one. Can't say it's a liberal position, but I do know at least a subset of liberals that come pretty close if not all the way to wanting to eliminate all military or at least it seems like it from their comments.
I feel like you may be misunderstanding their source of concern.
It's true that there's less support for the military when it's used to conquer and destabilize other countries, execute civilians by drone, kidnap civilians from other countries and hold them without any hope of a fair trial, support and entrench the power of known pedophiles in foreign countries, or run illegal torture facilities. Currently, the US military is an organization that should rightfully be steeped in dishonor and shame. Not because every member of it is a horrible person (or because a military is inherently bad), but because of how American has chosen to use it's force.
Many (if not most) social liberals are fans of using the military for humanitarian aid and peacekeeping missions though. The problem is usually not the military, but the goals the military is used to achieve.
I perhaps wasn't specific enough. Many liberals want to cut military, disagree with the use of military given recent Iraq war, etc. As I understand/have seen, humanitarian aid would be a go, peacekeeping missions - well, I think by adding that term, there's a decent amount of liberals who probably wouldn't be down with that and would reference other peacekeeping missions they didn't like. I'm specifically talking about a smaller subset of liberals I know that are pretty much straight up anti-having military whatsoever. They would be OK with a group of government sponsored people with no weapons who consisted of like engineers for infrastructure help in a foreign country for humanitarian aid but again without weapons. They're pretty close to pacifists. I don't know that there's a huge amount of them, but they aren't conservatives. Two different opinions but both of the liberal persuasion I would say. I am speaking anecdotally in this last instance, so maybe it's just a few acquaintances and almost no one else thinks this way.
I was going to post about forced adoption in the 1960s, when young moms would be told their babies died, but they didn't, and they were given to other families in closed adoptions.
Then, I read this story -- from 2012, where a woman's three children were taken by social workers and adopted to a homosexual couple.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/familys-anguish-as-they-face-third-forced-1676705
I'm going to suppose this is the work of liberals.
Another article about forced adoption:
https://rewire.news/article/2012/05/15/violations-continue-despite-forced-adoption-victories/
I'm also thinking of Rosemary Kennedy, and how she was lobotomized. There are many, many terrible parts of our past.
[the mother] said: "I did not under any circumstances want my children to be placed with gay men. I wanted them to have a mum and a dad.
The 59-year-old grandfather, who has seven children of his own, told the Daily Telegraph: "There is no way we'd have allowed the children to be adopted if we'd known they were going to a gay couple.
I was going to post about forced adoption in the 1960s, when young moms would be told their babies died, but they didn't, and they were given to other families in closed adoptions.
Then, I read this story -- from 2012, where a woman's three children were taken by social workers and adopted to a homosexual couple.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/familys-anguish-as-they-face-third-forced-1676705
I'm going to suppose this is the work of liberals.
I'm also thinking of Rosemary Kennedy, and how she was lobotomized. There are many, many terrible parts of our past.
I'm also thinking of Rosemary Kennedy, and how she was lobotomized. There are many, many terrible parts of our past.
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
You're right. parents who don't teach their kids about life are contributing to the problem. So what are we going to do about it? Do you have any suggestions as to how we can make parents raise their kids properly? Saying they ought to and walking away doesn't solve anything.
And as others have said, sex ed in schools is verifiably effective and it's probably better for kids to get a consistent education rather than be taught solely by their parents, some of whom were never taught properly themselves. Parents having "the talk" with their kids should be more about the emotional aspect* of relationships while education in school covers anatomy, statistics, and other factual information.
*ETA: not suggesting that parents should only teach the emotional aspect, just that I don't expect parents to be pulling out textbooks and diagrams for their presentations.
Biological facts taught in school i.e. the government are fine but they don’t go far enough to provide effective life lessons, and there are nuances to just the biological facts that might be in violation of some values.
My position that is if parents aren’t doing the job then they doing their children a disservice.
Counting on the government to do this job is shirking their parental duty.
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
You're right. parents who don't teach their kids about life are contributing to the problem. So what are we going to do about it? Do you have any suggestions as to how we can make parents raise their kids properly? Saying they ought to and walking away doesn't solve anything.
And as others have said, sex ed in schools is verifiably effective and it's probably better for kids to get a consistent education rather than be taught solely by their parents, some of whom were never taught properly themselves. Parents having "the talk" with their kids should be more about the emotional aspect* of relationships while education in school covers anatomy, statistics, and other factual information.
*ETA: not suggesting that parents should only teach the emotional aspect, just that I don't expect parents to be pulling out textbooks and diagrams for their presentations.
What are “we” going to do about it? When “ it” means parents s who do not teach values about and around Reproduction?
Gosh, Why don’t we just let it lie. Why do we have to do anything about it. Why does the government have to lumber in to solve every social problem? Cannot solve every problem and it need not try.
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concernYour characterization of what conservatives want is probably off by quite a bit.
How about the issue of teenage pregnancy?
I'd argue that neither social conservatives nor liberals desire teenage pregnancy.
The difference, as I see it, is the approach to solving the problem.
Conservatives favor: marginal sex education, less access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life.
Liberals favor: comprehensive sex education, more access to family planning, having the baby, adoption or not, marrying, and getting on with life [if that's what you want]
Liberals also favor: having the choice not to have the baby, having the choice not to marry too young to someone you don't want to marry, and then getting on with life
I am not much of a social conservative when it comes to this topic, on the other hand, I side with those conservatives who think that government sex education isn’t very effective and if parents don’t take on this job and make it a family value they are contributing to the problem.
You're right. parents who don't teach their kids about life are contributing to the problem. So what are we going to do about it? Do you have any suggestions as to how we can make parents raise their kids properly? Saying they ought to and walking away doesn't solve anything.
And as others have said, sex ed in schools is verifiably effective and it's probably better for kids to get a consistent education rather than be taught solely by their parents, some of whom were never taught properly themselves. Parents having "the talk" with their kids should be more about the emotional aspect* of relationships while education in school covers anatomy, statistics, and other factual information.
*ETA: not suggesting that parents should only teach the emotional aspect, just that I don't expect parents to be pulling out textbooks and diagrams for their presentations.
What are “we” going to do about it? When “ it” means parents s who do not teach values about and around Reproduction?
Gosh, Why don’t we just let it lie. Why do we have to do anything about it. Why does the government have to lumber in to solve every social problem? Cannot solve every problem and it need not try.
Oh damn, we may not find any common ground on this one. I think if we can teach children(who don't get to choose their parents) something that will vastly improve their lives, that's probably one of the better uses of government.
Are you against personal finance, responsibility, and social etiquette being taught in school for the same reasons? After all, parents should be teaching these to their kids.
Social conservatives tend to think sex ed shouldn't happen in a public school at all.Generally, sex education in school tends to be in the mechanics of sex and reproduction, nowadays with some token mention of consent, etc. I find it amusing that when Amish kids go to school, their parents raise no objections to their kids having sex ed - because their children have been exposed to the mechanics of sex and reproduction from early on - they live on a farm! And the Amish are nothing if not socially conservative. But urban conservatives flip out about it.
On top of this, the word "liberal" is often used to mean libertarian
That just means we should have the schools do it better, not not do it at all.
Social conservatives tend to think sex ed shouldn't happen in a public school at all.
I agree that ideally the children would get good messaging at home about sex, finances, etc.
If we agree that it isn't always the case, is it better to also have that education done in school, or not at all?
Social conservatives tend to think sex ed shouldn't happen in a public school at all.Generally, sex education in school tends to be in the mechanics of sex and reproduction, nowadays with some token mention of consent, etc. I find it amusing that when Amish kids go to school, their parents raise no objections to their kids having sex ed - because their children have been exposed to the mechanics of sex and reproduction from early on - they live on a farm! And the Amish are nothing if not socially conservative. But urban conservatives flip out about it.
I have no objection to schools teaching my children about sex and saving money and so on. The values they espouse may or may not be my values, but my values are hammered into them long before the school gets around to the topic, and anyway my children will be exposed to many more and different values simply by the fact of their watching TV and having friends who they talk to, etc.
Both progressives and conservatives seem to think that they can bring their children up in an insulated bubble of progressivism or conservatism. It doesn't work like that.
On top of this, the word "liberal" is often used to mean libertarian
Huh?
Libertarians are typically, nowadays, much more aligned with the conservative right (see: the Paul family).
When would the word liberal be used to mean libertarian, except if it's used incorrectly?
On top of this, the word "liberal" is often used to mean libertarian
Huh?
Libertarians are typically, nowadays, much more aligned with the conservative right (see: the Paul family).
When would the word liberal be used to mean libertarian, except if it's used incorrectly?
Classical liberalism. A UK term. I wasn't sure if this was contributing to the misunderstandings in this thread.
If libertarians are closely aligned with the conservative right, is this because conservatives actually tend toward libertarianism more, or is it because the authoritarian left doesn't want to acknowledge the libertarian left?
If libertarians are closely aligned with the conservative right, is this because conservatives actually tend toward libertarianism more, or is it because the authoritarian left doesn't want to acknowledge the libertarian left?
I think it’s basically because the conservative right and libertarians have in common not wanting their money to go to programs that benefit people who aren’t them.
Social conservatives tend to think sex ed shouldn't happen in a public school at all.Generally, sex education in school tends to be in the mechanics of sex and reproduction, nowadays with some token mention of consent, etc. I find it amusing that when Amish kids go to school, their parents raise no objections to their kids having sex ed - because their children have been exposed to the mechanics of sex and reproduction from early on - they live on a farm! And the Amish are nothing if not socially conservative. But urban conservatives flip out about it.
I have no objection to schools teaching my children about sex and saving money and so on. The values they espouse may or may not be my values, but my values are hammered into them long before the school gets around to the topic, and anyway my children will be exposed to many more and different values simply by the fact of their watching TV and having friends who they talk to, etc.
Both progressives and conservatives seem to think that they can bring their children up in an insulated bubble of progressivism or conservatism. It doesn't work like that.
Yes, you are right. Kids are not in bubbles, and they do have to learn to switch between situations where values are one thing and somewhat different in another situation. So in that regard, your post makes a lot of sense.All homes teach something about finance and sex and reproduction, even if the parents never specifically and openly talk about it. That right there is a teaching, that this stuff is secretive and should be hidden. Not good
Kind of.
In theory, libertarianism is a mix of economic and social theory - social liberalism with economic conservatism. In practice, most libertarians tend to vote with conservatives because the conservatives talk a lot about smaller government. They might complain about some of the more extreme social conservative policies, but the smaller government/lower taxes (taxes are of course, theft :P ) argument seems to be more important to Libertarians than the social one.
The authoritarian left also does this, but you may have a point.If libertarians are closely aligned with the conservative right, is this because conservatives actually tend toward libertarianism more, or is it because the authoritarian left doesn't want to acknowledge the libertarian left?
I think it’s basically because the conservative right and libertarians have in common not wanting their money to go to programs that benefit people who aren’t them.
If libertarians are closely aligned with the conservative right, is this because conservatives actually tend toward libertarianism more, or is it because the authoritarian left doesn't want to acknowledge the libertarian left?
I think it’s basically because the conservative right and libertarians have in common not wanting their money to go to programs that benefit people who aren’t them.
Kind of.
In theory, libertarianism is a mix of economic and social theory - social liberalism with economic conservatism. In practice, most libertarians tend to vote with conservatives because the conservatives talk a lot about smaller government. They might complain about some of the more extreme social conservative policies, but the smaller government/lower taxes (taxes are of course, theft :P ) argument seems to be more important to Libertarians than the social one.
I think it’s basically because the conservative right and libertarians have in common not wanting their money to go to programs that benefit people who aren’t them.
Social conservatives tend to think sex ed shouldn't happen in a public school at all.Generally, sex education in school tends to be in the mechanics of sex and reproduction, nowadays with some token mention of consent, etc. I find it amusing that when Amish kids go to school, their parents raise no objections to their kids having sex ed - because their children have been exposed to the mechanics of sex and reproduction from early on - they live on a farm! And the Amish are nothing if not socially conservative. But urban conservatives flip out about it.
I have no objection to schools teaching my children about sex and saving money and so on. The values they espouse may or may not be my values, but my values are hammered into them long before the school gets around to the topic, and anyway my children will be exposed to many more and different values simply by the fact of their watching TV and having friends who they talk to, etc.
Both progressives and conservatives seem to think that they can bring their children up in an insulated bubble of progressivism or conservatism. It doesn't work like that.
Yes, you are right. Kids are not in bubbles, and they do have to learn to switch between situations where values are one thing and somewhat different in another situation. So in that regard, your post makes a lot of sense.All homes teach something about finance and sex and reproduction, even if the parents never specifically and openly talk about it. That right there is a teaching, that this stuff is secretive and should be hidden. Not good
I find it interesting when parents try to limit the views their kids are exposed to. We have always done the opposite: true to expose them to many, many ideas and viewpoints. We have also discussed them with them and helped them learn how to analyze and build their own world view from them. My children are not carbon copies of me. They may not choose the same values as we do. And I am truly okay with that. After all, I no longer practice the same intense religion I was raised with, nor does my husband, yet our life is pretty great. We are happy making our own choices about life, so why shouldn’t our kids have that same freedom? As long as they don’t land on prison or harm others, I will always support their right and desire to choose their own path, whatever it is. I wish more people were okay with this. I think it would solve a lot of the adult relationship problems people experience with their kids as they grow up and leave the house.
That just means we should have the schools do it better, not not do it at all.
Social conservatives tend to think sex ed shouldn't happen in a public school at all.
I agree that ideally the children would get good messaging at home about sex, finances, etc.
If we agree that it isn't always the case, is it better to also have that education done in school, or not at all?
Schools can give just the facts but It seems in escapable to me that they impart fax without values.
I would like to know whose values they’re promoting. Can you tell me that?
That just means we should have the schools do it better, not not do it at all.
Social conservatives tend to think sex ed shouldn't happen in a public school at all.
I agree that ideally the children would get good messaging at home about sex, finances, etc.
If we agree that it isn't always the case, is it better to also have that education done in school, or not at all?
Schools can give just the facts but It seems in escapable to me that they impart fax without values.
I think that's ideal. Schools give facts, and they get their values at home.QuoteI would like to know whose values they’re promoting. Can you tell me that?
You're missing my point. I'm not arguing for, or against, whatever is being taught right now.
My question is: Do you want them to not teach any sex education at all?
Most conservatives think there should be no sex education in school. Most liberals think there should be.
I think the data based approach is that sex education (and family planning/contraceptive use) leads to better outcomes for individuals. The number one cause of death worldwide for teenage girls? Childbirth.
If you want it to come from the home, that's great... but what about those kids who don't get sex ed at home?
Tell me what you mean by sex education, when is it taught, and how. Then
I will tell you if
I agree.
What is a the real problem is though is there is such a range of maturity. Some kids are not ready to hear some things at some point, yet the government is one size fits all. Everyone gets the lesson, regardless. That is where parents come into it, knowing their child and the appropriateness of the lesson for his/her age.
For the record, my parents let me loose with any book I wanted in the public library, and were transparents about sex (as well as money.) But I wasn’t ready to hear about sexual intercourse when I was 10 or even 11, maybe 12? My brother figured it out at age 5. We are all different. That one size fits all is bunk..
Tell me what you mean by sex education, when is it taught, and how. Then
I will tell you if
I agree.
Nah. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it should be taught.
And then once we agree on that, one can debate the particulars (I mean, one could in theory; I won't). First we have to agree something should be taught.
Conservatives typically don't agree with that.
Tell me what you mean by sex education, when is it taught, and how. Then
I will tell you if
I agree.
Nah. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying it should be taught.
And then once we agree on that, one can debate the particulars (I mean, one could in theory; I won't). First we have to agree something should be taught.
Conservatives typically don't agree with that.QuoteWhat is a the real problem is though is there is such a range of maturity. Some kids are not ready to hear some things at some point, yet the government is one size fits all. Everyone gets the lesson, regardless. That is where parents come into it, knowing their child and the appropriateness of the lesson for his/her age.
For the record, my parents let me loose with any book I wanted in the public library, and were transparents about sex (as well as money.) But I wasn’t ready to hear about sexual intercourse when I was 10 or even 11, maybe 12? My brother figured it out at age 5. We are all different. That one size fits all is bunk..
But would you want the schools assessing whether or not a child is ready? I certainly hope not. The parents should assess that.
So the way that schools do it--at a particular age when the majority is ready, and then allowing the parents to opt-in / opt out for their particular child--is the ideal way to do it.
Would you rather they decide "this child's ready now" and teach a certain child 8 and "this child is not ready now" at age 12 and refuse to teach them? That seems absurd and invasive. So let's instead have it taught at a set point in school, and the parents decide if their kid is ready, and can sign a consent form to allow them, or refuse to sign.
As is the case now.
Basic biology and reproduction is fine, but I think what conservatives fear are the things that go far beyond that.Like what?
For the record, my parents let me loose with any book I wanted in the public library, and were transparents about sex (as well as money.) But I wasn’t ready to hear about sexual intercourse when I was 10 or even 11, maybe 12? My brother figured it out at age 5. We are all different. That one size fits all is bunk..
I was a Suburban kid in a rural state, not a farm kid.For the record, my parents let me loose with any book I wanted in the public library, and were transparents about sex (as well as money.) But I wasn’t ready to hear about sexual intercourse when I was 10 or even 11, maybe 12? My brother figured it out at age 5. We are all different. That one size fits all is bunk..
Did you manage to avoid witnessing animals mate both in real life and on TV until you were 10 years old? I definitely would have seen it by age five on PBS, but I loved nature documentaries. I did.
FWIW my school started sex ed in 3th grade, which would have made the class 8-9 years old.
Basic biology and reproduction is fine, but I think what conservatives fear are the things that go far beyond that.Like what?
Why is teaching birth control use verboten? Especially given that teaching this is proven to reduce teen pregnancy compared to abstinence only education, I'd figure that conservatives would want this. Since you don't I have to ask - why do you want to continue dong something known to increase teen pregnancy out of wedlock?
Why is teaching birth control use verboten? Especially given that teaching this is proven to reduce teen pregnancy compared to abstinence only education, I'd figure that conservatives would want this. Since you don't I have to ask - why do you want to continue dong something known to increase teen pregnancy out of wedlock?
I'm confused why people keep bringing up 'progressivism' in a discussion about social conservatism and social liberalism.
Why is teaching birth control use verboten? Especially given that teaching this is proven to reduce teen pregnancy compared to abstinence only education, I'd figure that conservatives would want this. Since you don't I have to ask - why do you want to continue dong something known to increase teen pregnancy out of wedlock?
To me, general birth control as a brief overview, along with information about abstinence (the only 100% effective method), is acceptable.
But not passing out condoms, application instructions, dental dams, creative ways to get off without risking pregnancy, etc. etc. etc. is over the top. Basic info about STDs is acceptable. So the basics. No one is going to come out of public education as as an expert on human sexuality, there should be some level of innocence maintained. Informed, yes, over exposed, no. And always with parental consent, parents informed about the specific content and parental opt-outs available for their minor children.
I'm confused why people keep bringing up 'progressivism' in a discussion about social conservatism and social liberalism.Because progressives are usually on the left. Leaning authoritarian.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
I'm confused why people keep bringing up 'progressivism' in a discussion about social conservatism and social liberalism.Because progressives are usually on the left. Leaning authoritarian.
As another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
They want to ban people like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson from speaking. They set off fire alarms, release stink bombs, etc.
See Antifa. I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.
This comes from an authoritarian "inclusive" mindset. It's left wing and very not libertarian.
The resistance that I see from the right regarding sex ed is mostly about transgender theory that's not assessing its own risks appropriately. Some children are transgender. Some children are confused or in a transitional state, but not actually transgender. We should be very careful with this, especially when it leads to elective sterilization.
To me, general birth control as a brief overview, along with information about abstinence (the only 100% effective method), is acceptable. But not passing out condoms, application instructions, dental dams, creative ways to get off without risking pregnancy, etc. etc. etc. is over the top. Basic info about STDs is acceptable. So the basics. No one is going to come out of public education as as an expert on human sexuality, there should be some level of innocence maintained. Informed, yes, over exposed, no. And always with parental consent, parents informed about the specific content and parental opt-outs available for their minor children.To be honest, I've always gotten angry at those charts that show abstinence as 100% effective. Yes, used properly, it's pretty much impossible to get pregnant without penetration. But that leads people to think teaching abstinence is 100% effective, and it's clearly the least effective form of birth control education.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
Don’t you remember being a teenager?
1. Harm reduction has its risks, see all the needles in San Francisco.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
There are, what, seven billion plus people in this world? We obviously suck at abstinence. You might want to factor that in to your social engineering.
1. Harm reduction has its risks, see all the needles in San Francisco.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
There are, what, seven billion plus people in this world? We obviously suck at abstinence. You might want to factor that in to your social engineering.
2. Overpopulation is more complicated, and might have more to do with families in developing nations favoring sons, among other things: the situation in India.
https://youtu.be/Uf60UQFBX8o
3. Not all teens that have sex are using condoms or not using them because they don't know about them.
I have a friend that had an abortion when his girlfriend was 17. They were using the pullout "method".
Not all teens have sex.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms.
If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
Because progressives are usually on the left. Leaning authoritarian.We may have a disagreement here on what "authoritarian" means.
As another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
They want to ban people like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson from speaking. They set off fire alarms, release stink bombs, etc.Protesting is not banning. Only a very small number of people actually want these douchebags banned. Most of us on the left would let them speak and argue with them. There is a point, once we're into swastikas and such, that we would all agree to just ban the person.
See Antifa. I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.Not sure who this is.
This comes from an authoritarian "inclusive" mindset. It's left wing and very not libertarian.Yep. The progressives used an authoritarianism "inclusive" mindset to include black people as non-slave citizens.
The resistance that I see from the right regarding sex ed is mostly about transgender theory that's not assessing its own risks appropriately. Some children are transgender. Some children are confused or in a transitional state, but not actually transgender. We should be very careful with this, especially when it leads to elective sterilization.The resistance I saw from the right on sex ed was not like this.
Not all teens have sex.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
IrrelevantQuoteTeens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms.
Except it's not so easy for everyone. Some kids are embarrassed to buy condoms or maybe they're afraid of being "caught" by their parents. Not to mention kids just don't plan ahead. The more easily accessible they are, the more likely they are to be used.QuoteIf you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
Do you honestly believe this statement is going to be the deciding factor for a teenager who wants to and has the opportunity to have sex?
Also, none of your response answered GuitarStv's question. The one reasonable response I can think of is that providing condoms is a way of saying it's ok and normal to have sex at that age. I'm not making that argument because I don't know exactly what the big picture outcome of providing condoms is, but at least it would be a logical argument.
1. Harm reduction has its risks, see all the needles in San Francisco.Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
There are, what, seven billion plus people in this world? We obviously suck at abstinence. You might want to factor that in to your social engineering.
2. Overpopulation is more complicated, and might have more to do with families in developing nations favoring sons, among other things: the situation in India.
https://youtu.be/Uf60UQFBX8o
3. Not all teens that have sex are using condoms or not using them because they don't know about them.
I have a friend that had an abortion when his girlfriend was 17. They were using the pullout "method".
QuoteSee Antifa. I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.Not sure who this is.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
LOL yeah. That'll stop 'em.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
I'm confused why people keep bringing up 'progressivism' in a discussion about social conservatism and social liberalism.Because progressives are usually on the left. Leaning authoritarian.
As another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
They want to ban people like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson from speaking. They set off fire alarms, release stink bombs, etc.
See Antifa. I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.
This comes from an authoritarian "inclusive" mindset. It's left wing and very not libertarian.
The resistance that I see from the right regarding sex ed is mostly about transgender theory that's not assessing its own risks appropriately. Some children are transgender. Some children are confused or in a transitional state, but not actually transgender. We should be very careful with this, especially when it leads to elective sterilization.
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
You didn't address my question in your response.
Why do you support an action proven to increase teen pregnancies?
Again, I'm not sure I understand a resistance to passing out condoms. We know that teens will have sex. We know that if access to birth control is difficult for them to get, they will have unprotected sex. We know that unprotected teen sex leads to teen pregnancy.
What you advocate will cause an increase in teen pregnancies. Why do you want this?
Not all teens have sex. Teens who have sex can easily go to Target and get their own condoms. If you can't afford condoms, perhaps you can't afford to have sex.
You didn't address my question in your response.
Why do you support an action proven to increase teen pregnancies?
I grew up in a Catholic household in a very Catholic part of the country. Here is the thinking that seemed prevalent to me:
Even though statistics say that teaching teenagers how to practice safe sex will reduce both teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs, to do so would be to condone sinning. Pre-marital sex is a sin, and nothing can be taught that would even remotely indicate that practicing it is okay.
Naturally, that area is near the top of the country in both teen pregnancies and STDs.
Setting off fire alarms, releasing stink bombs is way over the line though. That's edging into coercive / terrorist action, and should be condemned.
I guess I am an idealist. The healthiest sex is in a committed, loving relationship, and sexual experimentation before a person is ready can be emotionally and physically unhealthy. Expecting boys or girls to have sex early is detrimental to their well-being.
I am more concerned with anything that promotes that kids should be having sex or that society expects them to, or promotes sexual activities when sex is not the business of children. Schools are for studying. Sex ed is about learning to make emotionally and physically healthy choices, and having a clear understanding of the human body and how kids mature into adults.
The healthiest sex is in a committed, loving relationship, and sexual experimentation before a person is ready can be emotionally and physically unhealthy. Expecting boys or girls to have sex early is detrimental to their well-being.
I am more concerned with anything that promotes that kids should be having sex or that society expects them to, or promotes sexual activities when sex is not the business of children. Schools are for studying.
Sex ed is about learning to make emotionally and physically healthy choices, and having a clear understanding of the human body and how kids mature into adults.
Setting off fire alarms, releasing stink bombs is way over the line though. That's edging into coercive / terrorist action, and should be condemned.
Condemned *and* prosecuted.
Because progressives are usually on the left. Leaning authoritarian.We may have a disagreement here on what "authoritarian" means.
I use it to mean, "wants to make laws about human behaviour".
Authoritarians on the right want to outlaw abortion, birth control, dildos, enforce church attendance and institutionalize gay conversion therapy etc.
Authoritarians on the left want to outlaw plastic bags, high pollution vehicles while illegalizing gay conversion.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.QuoteThey want to ban people like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson from speaking. They set off fire alarms, release stink bombs, etc.Protesting is not banning. Only a very small number of people actually want these douchebags banned. Most of us on the left would let them speak and argue with them. There is a point, once we're into swastikas and such, that we would all agree to just ban the person.QuoteSee Antifa. I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.Not sure who this is.QuoteThis comes from an authoritarian "inclusive" mindset. It's left wing and very not libertarian.Yep. The progressives used an authoritarianism "inclusive" mindset to include black people as non-slave citizens.
Later, there was the Civil Rights Act, which required Americans to treat black people like human beings. It kinda worked and almost nobody but outright racists thinks it was bad. So "yay" for "authoritarian inclusivity."
Later, our authoritarianism forced everyone to include gay people as eligible for marriage.
We're very bossy about inclusivity.QuoteThe resistance that I see from the right regarding sex ed is mostly about transgender theory that's not assessing its own risks appropriately. Some children are transgender. Some children are confused or in a transitional state, but not actually transgender. We should be very careful with this, especially when it leads to elective sterilization.The resistance I saw from the right on sex ed was not like this.
a) they lied that Kindergarten kids were being taught anal sex
b) they didn't want public schools teaching anything about birth control
c) they made a big deal about the Premier of Ontario being a lesbian
d) some complaints about transgender theory
e) "I don't want my kid being taught he can't make fun of Sally because she has two Moms!"
The authoritarianism of the left (putting aside the rules about pollution for now) is about teaching people not to be mean to anyone who is different. No, you can't pick on the gay kid, or the kid with gay parents. You can't pick on the boy who likes to wear pink or the girl who prefers the short hair cut. We're not letting you do that. That's our authoritarian streak.
Toque.
I can't deal with the nested quotes on mobile, so I'll have limited responses for now.
"OK, but we weren't talking about left/right (which can mean an awful lot of different things to different people). We were talking about social conservatism vs social liberalism."
Saying that social conservatives are always wrong is similar to saying that social liberals are always right. I'm using the authoritarian lefties as a contrast to the authoritarian right. Both of these groups have their pathologies. Social conservatives that are libertarian are not always wrong.
And left/right do not mean many different things. They have typical tendencies that are well known. The libertarian axis is separated from left/right.
Sex ed is about learning to make emotionally and physically healthy choices, and having a clear understanding of the human body and how kids mature into adults.
Sounds good to me. But (for example) how do you propose that a gay child should learn to make emotionally and physically healthy choices without ever having a discussion of gay sex, and the ways to have gay sex safely?
But also, I feel like you haven't answered my question. Why do you support an action proven to increase teen pregnancies? Is your answer that you do so because you're an idealist rather than a realist?
Setting off fire alarms, releasing stink bombs is way over the line though. That's edging into coercive / terrorist action, and should be condemned.
Condemned *and* prosecuted.
I mean, I'm not sure exactly what the prosecution for stink bombs usually is . . . but yeah. Of course they should be.
Social conservatives can always be wrong without social liberals always being right. One does not follow logically from the other. While they disagree on social issues, there can be overlap between the groups on economic and political issues.My point is that neither case is particularly likely. And I have made a case in this thread that some social conservative ideas are useful and some social liberal ones are not.
You've claimed that left/right do not mean different things. Can you summarize what you believe they mean in the context of your post?I said they don't mean MANY different things. Since you said that left/right mean different things to different people. I do not agree with this; the differences are well known and well distinguished.
Sex ed is about learning to make emotionally and physically healthy choices, and having a clear understanding of the human body and how kids mature into adults.
Sounds good to me. But (for example) how do you propose that a gay child should learn to make emotionally and physically healthy choices without ever having a discussion of gay sex, and the ways to have gay sex safely?
But also, I feel like you haven't answered my question. Why do you support an action proven to increase teen pregnancies? Is your answer that you do so because you're an idealist rather than a realist?
Regarding where you learn to have safe sex, and thinking about it more, it seems more appropriate to have those conversations with the family physician, and parents. Basic science and reproductive health in schools sure, but personal particulars with the family doctor.
I have not finished thinking through the rest of it yet.
Look I am all for most all info being available to kids and pre teens and teens as interests them.
But if you all don't hear your self righteous value laden opinions in this thread, that is part of the problem. My kid, my choice.Your kid, your choice and lay on your values all you like.
If you all think that my teenager cannot control himself, my teenager needs facts prior to that puberty of his/hers that renders his/her brain all crazy-like, my teenager must have condoms shoved into his/her hands...etc...then I say you do not know my theoretical teenager. These things may or may not be true, and to varying degrees.But you dont know.
Look I am all for most all info being available to kids and pre teens and teens as interests them.
But if you all don't hear your self righteous value laden opinions in this thread, that is part of the problem. My kid, my choice.Your kid, your choice and lay on your values all you like.
If you all think that my teenager cannot control himself, my teenager needs facts prior to that puberty of his/hers that renders his/her brain all crazy-like, my teenager must have condoms shoved into his/her hands...etc...then I say you do not know my theoretical teenager. These things may or may not be true, and to varying degrees.But you dont know.
Sex ed in schools typically is provided with the option for parents to opt their kids out, right? Nobody is shoving anything in anyone's faces.
What you shouldn't be able to do is prevent other children from getting this education. Because you don't know them.
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
Your sick gains with the barbell aren't socially constructed?^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
As someone with actual teenagers in actual school (in a state where the health curriculum, including sex ed, is pretty comprehensive) I have some thoughts about this.
My observation is that teenagers seem to fall (at least in this matter) into two buckets: the "not going to have sex in high school" bucket, and the "hell yeah!" bucket. I was in bucket 1. MrInCO was in bucket 2. We have one teenage son in each bucket. This is not because our values changed mid-child-rearing, it's because they're different people. I've also noticed that adults who themselves were in bucket 1 have a hard time imagining that some kids would legitimately be in bucket 2, and can be pretty judgy about it.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
Your examples are definitely authoritarian. Wearing blackface is accepted to be bad. A Scandinavian teaching yoga, not so much.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
This is likely why Toque mentioned "The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon."
You've called the protest of cultural appropriation authoritarian. Authoritarianism is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
So, which authority is demanding strict obedience? Strict obedience to what exactly (where are these laws written out)? Who is enforcing them?
Freedom is not guaranteed to be consequence free. If you're free to wear black face, someone offended by this is equally free to protest these actions. If the person hosting the party that you're wearing black face at decides he doesn't want you there because of the hassle and kicks you out, that's also a natural consequence of your actions. None of these actions is authoritarian though.
My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
+1
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender. Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants. That's physiology. Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act. That's largely made up stuff.
She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Your examples are definitely authoritarian. Wearing blackface is accepted to be bad. A Scandinavian teaching yoga, not so much.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
This is likely why Toque mentioned "The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon."
You've called the protest of cultural appropriation authoritarian. Authoritarianism is the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom.
So, which authority is demanding strict obedience? Strict obedience to what exactly (where are these laws written out)? Who is enforcing them?
Freedom is not guaranteed to be consequence free. If you're free to wear black face, someone offended by this is equally free to protest these actions. If the person hosting the party that you're wearing black face at decides he doesn't want you there because of the hassle and kicks you out, that's also a natural consequence of your actions. None of these actions is authoritarian though.
My point was the arguments of convenience that are used by lefty authoritarians when it suits their goals. How they will hound someone wearing a costume when costumes are precedent, but exempt someone running for POTUS.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
+1
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender. Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants. That's physiology. Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act. That's largely made up stuff.
Is this just snark? If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago.And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Thank you for answering my question.
QuoteShould a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?
This is a tricky question, and I'm not sure there's a good answer.
Partly because it's not just male/ female sex - there are people with both sets of organs, and there are people who have more/ less testosterone. And wasn't there a thread on here about that pretty recently?
She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
+1
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender. Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants. That's physiology. Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act. That's largely made up stuff.
It's a tricky question to answer.
Women are (on average) weaker and slower than men. We've created an artificial set of rules that are half based around measurable sex characteristics, and half based around gender rules in order to allow women to compete among themselves on a more level playing field.
This generally works well (and achieves the expected goal), but there are specific corner cases like the one that you mentioned that are hard to get a good answer for. My gut instinct would be that if the transgender woman is post op and on female hormones . . . then biologically she should be pretty close to level with any of the women she's competing with. In which case, yeah, let her compete. I can think of cases where it wouldn't make sense to allow though. I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis.
Is this just snark? If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago.And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Thank you for answering my question.
It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.
"Family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship," Warren said Wednesday, "and this is why I have apologized ... to Chief Baker...
She is, at most, 1.6% native. I'm not buying that she was trying to honor her heritage. I think she was being politically expedient. I will agree to disagree with you on this.Is this just snark? If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago.And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Thank you for answering my question.
It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/692103008/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-latest-revelation-of-native-american-claimsQuote"Family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship," Warren said Wednesday, "and this is why I have apologized ... to Chief Baker...
At the time she filled out the form, she did not understand this. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, this distinction played no role in her hiring. It's not that there isn't any truth to it, but the claims you've made are verifiably false.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
+1
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender. Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants. That's physiology. Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act. That's largely made up stuff.
It's a tricky question to answer.
Women are (on average) weaker and slower than men. We've created an artificial set of rules that are half based around measurable sex characteristics, and half based around gender rules in order to allow women to compete among themselves on a more level playing field.
This generally works well (and achieves the expected goal), but there are specific corner cases like the one that you mentioned that are hard to get a good answer for. My gut instinct would be that if the transgender woman is post op and on female hormones . . . then biologically she should be pretty close to level with any of the women she's competing with. In which case, yeah, let her compete. I can think of cases where it wouldn't make sense to allow though. I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis.
Case by case makes this very difficult to be consistent in a competitive environment. A former man who had testosterone coursing through them for twenty years will not have the effect undone by an operation. I'm sure if a few women die at the hands of trans women in MMA matches this situation will find a resolution. I agree with you mostly though.
She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
+1
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender. Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants. That's physiology. Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act. That's largely made up stuff.
It's a tricky question to answer.
Women are (on average) weaker and slower than men. We've created an artificial set of rules that are half based around measurable sex characteristics, and half based around gender rules in order to allow women to compete among themselves on a more level playing field.
This generally works well (and achieves the expected goal), but there are specific corner cases like the one that you mentioned that are hard to get a good answer for. My gut instinct would be that if the transgender woman is post op and on female hormones . . . then biologically she should be pretty close to level with any of the women she's competing with. In which case, yeah, let her compete. I can think of cases where it wouldn't make sense to allow though. I guess it would have to be on a case by case basis.
Case by case makes this very difficult to be consistent in a competitive environment. A former man who had testosterone coursing through them for twenty years will not have the effect undone by an operation. I'm sure if a few women die at the hands of trans women in MMA matches this situation will find a resolution. I agree with you mostly though.
These types of cases tend to be pretty rare. To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport. I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.
I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing. A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing. I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.
(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors. The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time. That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing. The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out. Much more dangerous.)
She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
So we should all up up in arms over something that may or may not have happened? More so than someone wearing blackface or dressing up as Hitler for Halloween. Wow, just wow dude!
"Why do you believe that:
- protesting someone who wears black face is authoritarian
- kicking someone out of a private party who arrives dressed in blackface is authoritarian
To me, the first is exercising freedom of speech and the second is exercising his right to property. I'm curious why you believe that this is authoritarianism, and what you would propose as a fair way to fix both scenarios to your liking"
I do agree with your characterization of those situations, although the second is more clear since it's private property and a private event. The difference here is that blackface is a limit case; It's already well entrenched as unacceptable.
The problem is when groups like antifa pull fire alarms when people like Dr Peterson say things like "men and women are different", and this is presumed as denial of trans people or something. There's a complex world between "I want to help the disenfranchised" and "we must resist the oppressors". The latter must be dealt with a great deal of care and recursion (otherwise you risk labelling your well intentioned opponents as oppressors that should be destroyed)
These types of cases tend to be pretty rare. To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport. I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.
I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing. A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing. I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.
(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors. The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time. That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing. The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out. Much more dangerous.)
Fair enough. But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate. And it will be very hard to find the answers.
What happened was that she declared herself native when she really wasn't. That's the root of this problem. Not whether or not she benefited from it--that part is more subjective, although I believe she did.
Edit: the better question here is: did she practice or embody any behavior during this time that would demonstrate her heritage? Was she close with the community? I'm still betting on political or I suppose professional expedience.
She is, at most, 1.6% native. I'm not buying that she was trying to honor her heritage. I think she was being politically expedient. I will agree to disagree with you on this.Is this just snark? If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago.And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.
Thank you for answering my question.
It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/692103008/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-for-latest-revelation-of-native-american-claimsQuote"Family stories are not the same as tribal citizenship," Warren said Wednesday, "and this is why I have apologized ... to Chief Baker...
At the time she filled out the form, she did not understand this. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, this distinction played no role in her hiring. It's not that there isn't any truth to it, but the claims you've made are verifiably false.
Edit: you allege she didn't understand that. The distinction not being a hiring factor is an allegation. Those are not verifiable in retrospect.
Women in MMA might disagree. This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.These types of cases tend to be pretty rare. To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport. I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.
I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing. A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing. I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.
(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors. The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time. That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing. The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out. Much more dangerous.)
Fair enough. But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate. And it will be very hard to find the answers.
I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.
Deaths in fighting sports are very rare. Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare. I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
Women in MMA might disagree. This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.These types of cases tend to be pretty rare. To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport. I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.
I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing. A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing. I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.
(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors. The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time. That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing. The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out. Much more dangerous.)
Fair enough. But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate. And it will be very hard to find the answers.
I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.
Deaths in fighting sports are very rare. Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare. I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American).
What happened was that she declared herself native when she really wasn't. That's the root of this problem. Not whether or not she benefited from it--that part is more subjective, although I believe she did.
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.The assertion that they are different is a social assertion, which has only very weak roots in physiological science. It's saying that identity trumps physiology. In other words, belief is more important than facts. This is a view which denies science.
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.The assertion that they are different is a social assertion, which has only very weak roots in physiological science. It's saying that identity trumps physiology. In other words, belief is more important than facts. This is a view which denies science.
Now, it is at times actually useful and good to deny or ignore science. Romantic love, for example, is not helped by taking blood assays to assess the hormones floating around at the time, and science cannot and probably never will explain why (as shown in the Blue Zones Project) people with religious belief and members of religious communities tend to live longer than lonely atheists. If I adopt a boy and say "he is my son", I am denying physiology. But it's better if (while allowing him to know he's not my birth son) we both ignore physiology and I treat him exactly as I would my biological son, and he treats me exactly as he would a biological father. And the likely scientific fact that death ends in unconscious oblivion is not one which it's healthy to contemplate every day.
So if denying physiological science helps people having trouble with their gender identity find happiness and fulfilment, all good, and we should support and respect their choices. Thus transgenders should get the treatments they desire, I am fully support of it being on Medicare here in Australia, since it has the appropriate protections of not being done on minors, it taking time, etc. Nonetheless, all the talk of it is a denial of science.
On the flipside, while progressives allow for people to be transgender, they are violently against anyone being transracial; cf the drama of Rachel Dolezal. And the physiological fact is that there is less genetic and anatomical difference between any random African American woman and a caucasian woman, than between a woman and a man. If what I identify as - my belief - can ignore physiology, then there is certainly a greater case for being transracial than being transgender, since there is less physiological difference to ignore. After all, men and women quite literally have different organs in their bodies, there exist no organs which one race has but another doesn't.
Why are transgendered accepted by progressives, but transracials abused? Why can someone identify as a different sex/gender, but not race? Either identity trumps all, or it does not. Because again, this is not based in science, but in ideology.
Likewise, conservatives will accept science when it comes to geology, medicine, engineering and so on, but reject science when it comes to climate change. Ideology.
Ideologies have a long history of ignoring scientific reality when it clashes with some tenets of the ideology. The "trickle-down effect" or "free markets cure all" of capitalism, or collectivisation in Communism. "No, no, this time it will work, it just wasn't tried hard enough last time!" Lysenkoism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism) is perhaps the purest example.
To answer the OP, social conservatives do not have a monopoly on being wrong. Every religion, every ideology, has its blind spots, its moments of "la la la I can't hear you!" And one of those blind spots is, "the other guys are always wrong, simply because they are The Other Guys."
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender.The assertion that they are different is a social assertion, which has only very weak roots in physiological science. It's saying that identity trumps physiology. In other words, belief is more important than facts. This is a view which denies science.
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender....snip
This appears to be a confirmation of my previous statement then? You do not understand what gender is, and have confused it with sex.
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender....snip
This appears to be a confirmation of my previous statement then? You do not understand what gender is, and have confused it with sex.
Biological sex is one aspect of gender. The word gender has different meanings depending on context.
Agreed. Kyle's post treats gender as though biological sex were the only aspect though. That's where the confusion seems to arise.Again, this neatly demonstrates: denying physiological reality.
Agreed. Kyle's post treats gender as though biological sex were the only aspect though. That's where the confusion seems to arise.Again, this neatly demonstrates: denying physiological reality.
Again: why can we be transgender but can't be transracial?
Why can I identify as a person with different organs, but can't identify as a person with different skin colour?
Why am I allowed to ignore internal physiology, but not allowed to ignore cosmetic physiology? The ignoring science isn't even internally consistent. Likewise with rightwingers who deny climate change but still check the weather updates each day, or believe in geological science when drill cores tell them where oil is, but not when the drill cores tell them past temperatures.
Ignoring science because it doesn't fit ideology is the essence of being an ideologue. Thus rightwingers ignoring climate science, and leftwingers ignoring physiology, both gender/sex and (commonly) vaccination. Both also, by the by, ignore that their particular approaches when tried purely simply don't work. "The Soviet Union wasn't real communism," and "The US isn't real capitalism." Weaseling away from reality makes productive change difficult. This is a problem in our polarised ideological society.
The question is not whether conservatives or progressives are more wrong, but whether their wrongness actually matters.
The science-ignoring of "progressives", since the Soviet Union fell, is currently less damaging to the world than the science-ignoring of "conservatives", because we still have the USA. The lefty stuff is never going to take over the world without a great power sponsoring it. That's why it's given a pass in society. If Bruce wants to become Caitlin it doesn't really matter. She's happier now, so who cares.
Race - there is more genetic variability in Africa than in all other people combined - there was a genetic bottleneck as people left Africa, and then more genetic bottlenecks as small groups moved again and again. As far as ecologists can tell, the amount of skin pigment in a small inbreeding group is determined by UV exposure and dietary availability of vitamin D. Do we say yellow Labrador retrievers are better/worse than chocolate Labs than black Labs? NO. So skin pigment is a silly criterion.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
I'm not sure it is an unusual event. "Everything happened in the first round within the first two and a half minutes. It was a messy, bloody fight and not easy for everyone to watch. During the fight Tamika suffered a concussion and fractured her orbital bone in her skull and Fallon Fox didn’t stop until Tamika Brents was finally TKO’d. After the fight she received several staples in her head"Women in MMA might disagree. This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.These types of cases tend to be pretty rare. To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport. I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.
I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing. A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing. I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.
(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors. The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time. That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing. The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out. Much more dangerous.)
Fair enough. But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate. And it will be very hard to find the answers.
I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.
Deaths in fighting sports are very rare. Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare. I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
I get (and understand) the argument that a transgender woman might have physiological advantages over the average woman. That's a reasonable thing to be concerned about. As mentioned previously, your scenario is an unusual one and there's no clear cut right or wrong on that.
To the best of my knowledge, performance enhancing drugs haven't been linked to any deaths in the ring in MMA. What? How can that be? Won't 'roids turn someone into an unstoppable best? Well, no. PEDs are used for three reasons in fighting sports:
- to recover faster and increase training workload (more training means better skills - this is why the Gracies were fans of steroids but didn't look like bodybuilders)
- to maintain high levels of muscle and low levels of body fat
- to gain strength by increasing overall body muscle weight
Steroids, testosterone, and growth hormone will not make you hit harder than another guy with the same amount of muscle mass who is the same weight. Fighting sports all use weight classes. At best you're gaining a fractional strength advantage because you've got slightly less fat on your frame. Drug use in MMA is pretty widespread (I've fought against guys who were taking 'roids). Deaths in matches are not.
Insinuating that a transgender woman on who has been on hormone replacement for some time is somehow likely to kill another woman in the ring is therefore a really weird argument to make. Both women will be in the same weight class. Given enough time, female hormones will increase the amount of fat that the transgender woman carries to the same levels that a natural born woman carries. It would be quite surprising to find any significant difference in strength between the two.
I'm not sure it is an unusual event. "Everything happened in the first round within the first two and a half minutes. It was a messy, bloody fight and not easy for everyone to watch. During the fight Tamika suffered a concussion and fractured her orbital bone in her skull and Fallon Fox didn’t stop until Tamika Brents was finally TKO’d. After the fight she received several staples in her head"Women in MMA might disagree. This is about fairness in the sport, and previously being male could be interpreted similarly to performance enhancing drugs.These types of cases tend to be pretty rare. To my knowledge, there has never been a man who has gotten a sex change with the intent to dominate women's sport. I don't know what the period of time necessary to be taking female hormone to negate any physical benefit of male hormones, but am certain that a rule could be added regarding the matter.
I've competed in MMA, Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, and boxing. A death in the ring has nothing to do with sex and gender, and is overwhelmingly caused by a fluke accident or outstandingly piss-poor refereeing. I sincerely doubt that allowing trans women to compete with born women would have any real bearing on this.
(Actually, if there's a tremendous power disparity between the two as you are insinuating would happen, the match would tend to end more quickly which is typically safer for the competitors. The most concussions and brain damage tends to come from very evenly matched people who are beating on each other for longer periods of time. That's one of the reasons that MMA is considered a safer sport than boxing. The heavier gloves slow hand speed in boxing, which means that less force hits an opponent . . . which means that you get hit a lot more often before you're knocked out. Much more dangerous.)
Fair enough. But if a woman dies from a brain hemmorhage after fighting a trans woman, these questions will proliferate. And it will be very hard to find the answers.
I don't believe that it will be any harder to find answers than for any other death in the ring.
Deaths in fighting sports are very rare. Transgender people in sports (particularly fighting sports) are also very rare. I feel like you're searching for a unicorn here.
I get (and understand) the argument that a transgender woman might have physiological advantages over the average woman. That's a reasonable thing to be concerned about. As mentioned previously, your scenario is an unusual one and there's no clear cut right or wrong on that.
To the best of my knowledge, performance enhancing drugs haven't been linked to any deaths in the ring in MMA. What? How can that be? Won't 'roids turn someone into an unstoppable best? Well, no. PEDs are used for three reasons in fighting sports:
- to recover faster and increase training workload (more training means better skills - this is why the Gracies were fans of steroids but didn't look like bodybuilders)
- to maintain high levels of muscle and low levels of body fat
- to gain strength by increasing overall body muscle weight
Steroids, testosterone, and growth hormone will not make you hit harder than another guy with the same amount of muscle mass who is the same weight. Fighting sports all use weight classes. At best you're gaining a fractional strength advantage because you've got slightly less fat on your frame. Drug use in MMA is pretty widespread (I've fought against guys who were taking 'roids). Deaths in matches are not.
Insinuating that a transgender woman on who has been on hormone replacement for some time is somehow likely to kill another woman in the ring is therefore a really weird argument to make. Both women will be in the same weight class. Given enough time, female hormones will increase the amount of fat that the transgender woman carries to the same levels that a natural born woman carries. It would be quite surprising to find any significant difference in strength between the two.
https://www.attacktheback.com/transgender-mma-fighter-fallon-fox-breaks-opponents-skull/
If you look at why title 9 exists, this may have bloodier than other examples, but I don't think an unusual one.
Can you explain what unusual specific advantage you believe Fallon enjoyed over her opponent because she is transgender?
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
Can you explain what unusual specific advantage you believe Fallon enjoyed over her opponent because she is transgender?
I honestly had to read this question two or three times to have my brain comprehend that the words on the screen were actually real.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
LOL. This came up in another thread. It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American. She pulled a big con and was called out for it.
Not getting involved with the politics, just chiming in on the transgender thing due to there being so many common misconceptions. I'm married to a transgender woman. We were married prior to transition and we are both physically active. She has been on female hormones and T-blockers for years now. The most surprising thing for her was how weak she became after a few months of hormones, even though her activity levels remained the same. When it comes to developing/maintaining muscle, she now has to work harder than me (a biological female) to have similar results. This is common and was addressed by both her doctor and therapist prior to beginning transition. She also now has similar increased health risks for certain "female" health conditions, such as breast cancer and osteoporosis.
Biologically, there is little to no physical advantage after a few years of committed hormone therapy. Unless, of course, one thinks there is an advantage to requiring both a mammogram and a prostate exam.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
LOL. This came up in another thread. It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American. She pulled a big con and was called out for it.
It's astonishing to me sometimes how people can apparently "read" information and it nevertheless has absolutely no impact on their falsely held belief. It's like their mind just jumps right over it like a skip in a record.
Actually we do know it because if you look at when she filled out the paperwork indicating that she had Native ancestry (which we know now to be true per the blood test), she was already an employee.She might have, no one will know. But she had the audacity to play that game. I might have .more native blood than her and I know better.My mistake. She was hired, not a student. The rest stands.Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.QuoteAs another example, look at intersectionality. The authoritarian left got mad that non-disabled actors or non-gay actors were playing disabled characters or gay characters.Those aren't examples of authoritarianism. You can protest bad behaviour without wanting to make laws about it. The bounds of what cultural appropriation is aren't universally agreed upon. Blackface: bad. Dressing up as "Mexican" for Hallowe'en: bad. Non-Japanese person teaching karate or non-Indian person teaching yoga after having been certified: unclear.
They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.
Dressing up as Mexican at Halloween is not decidedly unacceptable. Many people are fine with this. Some people are more offended by the yoga thing.
What's remarkable to me is that the authoritarian left is more concerned with Halloween costumes than politicians that exploited affirmative action for their own gain (Elizabeth Warren attending Harvard as a native American). And don't be too quick to be offended, I'm 0.2% native so she may be appropriating my culture.
Mind if I ask you where you got this information? And a follow up question, does it matter to you if you repeat untrue accusations on the internet?
*eye-roll* She wasn't hired as a native American, she was hired as a law professor. You make it sound like she got the job because she was falsely claiming to be an American Indian. You are repeating untrue accusations.
LOL. This came up in another thread. It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American. She pulled a big con and was called out for it.
It's astonishing to me sometimes how people can apparently "read" information and it nevertheless has absolutely no impact on their falsely held belief. It's like their mind just jumps right over it like a skip in a record.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
+1
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender. Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants. That's physiology. Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act. That's largely made up stuff.
LOL. This came up in another thread. It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American. She pulled a big con and was called out for it.
2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.
Is this what you guys are talking about? It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol
Is this what you guys are talking about? It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol
That's the one. LOL!
At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.
Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots
I really don't see what the big deal is though. All politicians lie, the trick is to pick one that lies the least and somewhat aligns with how you want your social and economic world to operate.
Trump lies A LOT but I am not just going to vote for "anything but Trump". I think Trump is controllable to some extent. Just look how far he has gotten on his wall...nowhere. Depending on the candidate we get to oppose Trump, it might be best to take the devil you know and hope that in 2024 we get an Obama.
I really don't see what the big deal is though. All politicians lie, the trick is to pick one that lies the least and somewhat aligns with how you want your social and economic world to operate.
Trump lies A LOT but I am not just going to vote for "anything but Trump". I think Trump is controllable to some extent. Just look how far he has gotten on his wall...nowhere. Depending on the candidate we get to oppose Trump, it might be best to take the devil you know and hope that in 2024 we get an Obama.
Is this what you guys are talking about? It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol
That's the one. LOL!
At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.
Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots
This is a mischaracterization of what happened.
She apologized for taking the test at all because even if she were proven to be 100% of Cherokee Native American ancestry it would not make her a member of the Cherokee nation. That's a tribal designation that is handled by Cherokee people.
Personally, I think that it's weird that Trump supporters get worked up over this 'lie' but are perfectly fine with Trump's lie that he would give a million dollars to charity if Warren proved through DNA testing that she had Native ancestry.
Is this what you guys are talking about? It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol
That's the one. LOL!
At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.
Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots
This is a mischaracterization of what happened.
She apologized for taking the test at all because even if she were proven to be 100% of Cherokee Native American ancestry it would not make her a member of the Cherokee nation. That's a tribal designation that is handled by Cherokee people.
Personally, I think that it's weird that Trump supporters get worked up over this 'lie' but are perfectly fine with Trump's lie that he would give a million dollars to charity if Warren proved through DNA testing that she had Native ancestry.
I don't see that the article says 100% DNA would have made her Cherokee.
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people. I suspect Trump gives a large amount to charity regardless.
I can't speak for Trump supporters, though, as I am an independent.
President Trump on Monday denied that he offered Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) $1 million to take a test proving her Native American heritage, even though he did just that.
Trump spoke after Warren responded to the president's challenge and released the results of a DNA test showing she has a distant Native ancestor.
"I didn't say that. You'd better read it again," Trump told reporters at the White House when asked about his $1 million offer.
Responding to a question about Warren's test, Trump said, "Who cares?"
During a campaign rally on July 5, Trump taunted Warren for her claims of Native American ancestry, a staple of his campaign stump speeches.
"I will give you a million dollars, to your favorite charity, paid for by Trump, if you take the test and it shows you’re an Indian," Trump said at the time. "I have a feeling she will say 'no.' "
Is this what you guys are talking about? It isn't a lie, she had like 0.5% native american blood lol
That's the one. LOL!
At least Warren actually apologized for the non-sense when the results came out.
Elizabeth Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation after DNA test results:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/elizabeth-warren-apologizes-to-cherokee-nation-over-taking-dna-test-to-prove-native-american-roots
This is a mischaracterization of what happened.
She apologized for taking the test at all because even if she were proven to be 100% of Cherokee Native American ancestry it would not make her a member of the Cherokee nation. That's a tribal designation that is handled by Cherokee people.
Personally, I think that it's weird that Trump supporters get worked up over this 'lie' but are perfectly fine with Trump's lie that he would give a million dollars to charity if Warren proved through DNA testing that she had Native ancestry.
I don't see that the article says 100% DNA would have made her Cherokee.
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people. I suspect Trump gives a large amount to charity regardless.
I can't speak for Trump supporters, though, as I am an independent.
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.
Don't laugh at the guy who constantly and without fail posts pro-trump comments. He's very independent. It says so, right up there.
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.
There are reasons we have title 9 and women have their own sports.Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?...what? People on the left don't deny gender.^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote "It's like the lefties denying physiology". What physiology are they denying?Gender.
However, progressive denial of physiological science has less consequences for the world than conservative denial of climate science.
To the contrary: they're generally very concerned that anyone should be able to express whatever gender they are without being discriminated against, persecuted, or having other rights taken away because of what gender they are or express.
+1
Although I feel like Kyle maybe confusing sex with gender. Your sex is determined by whether you've got a block n'tackle or an extra innie under your pants. That's physiology. Gender is a social and cultural construct determining how a man or woman should or shouldn't act. That's largely made up stuff.
Probably better to get rid of gender specific sports and make it fair game for all. Equal rights for all. Let the best athlete win irrespective of gender.
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.
I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.
One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.
I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.
One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,
Speaking of trolls, you're doing a damn good job of being one now. And if anyone is lazy, it's you. The 6 to 10 generations back result was mentioned in the article I linked ot, and if you had actually read it, you hopefully wouldn't be wasting my time by repeating the same thing back to me! Duh!
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
Which means she has more native american blood than average.
What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
Which means she has more native american blood than average.
What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?
What am I missing? LOL Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American. Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage. That is a very tiny amount. And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
Which means she has more native american blood than average.
What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?
What am I missing? LOL Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American. Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage. That is a very tiny amount. And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.
Good, so we agree that she has more Native American blood than average.
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.
I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.
One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,
Speaking of trolls, you're doing a damn good job of being one now. And if anyone is lazy, it's you. The 6 to 10 generations back result was mentioned in the article I linked ot, and if you had actually read it, you hopefully wouldn't be wasting my time by repeating the same thing back to me! Duh!
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
Perhaps Trump would have given the $1M if she had more than the average among the American people.
I can't figure out if you're lazy, stupid, or a troll. I'm leaning towards troll.
One of the most respected DNA experts in the world concluded the evidence "strongly supported" an ancestor 6-10 generations back,
Speaking of trolls, you're doing a damn good job of being one now. And if anyone is lazy, it's you. The 6 to 10 generations back result was mentioned in the article I linked ot, and if you had actually read it, you hopefully wouldn't be wasting my time by repeating the same thing back to me! Duh!
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
I very specifically addressed your repeated claim that the average American has more Native American DNA than Warren, a claim that has zero evidence, at least some counter evidence, and which originated with Republican political operatives.
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
Which means she has more native american blood than average.
What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?
What am I missing? LOL Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American. Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage. That is a very tiny amount. And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.
Good, so we agree that she has more Native American blood than average.
Maybe only 1/1024th, but that still doesn't make her native American. And at least she apologized for the charade. I have to give her credit for that.
Here is a quote from the article I posted the link to:
The test itself revealed strong evidence the Massachusetts senator had a Native-American ancestor dating back six to 10 generations. But that means if Warren’s great-great-great-grandmother were Native American, she would be considered 1/64 Native American. Should Warren’s ancestor date back 10 generations, she would be only 1/1,024 Native American.
Maybe read next time? LOL
Which means she has more native american blood than average.
What are you missing here? Do you think a majority of Americans have a Native American ancestor within 6-10 generations?
What am I missing? LOL Warren was the one who claimed to be Native American, and she even filled out the form posted earlier stating she was Native American. Yet, the results of the test show she may have a little as 1/1024th Native American heritage. That is a very tiny amount. And anyway, as I mentioned earlier, Warren has apologized, so I think she has learned her lesson, and we shouldn't harp on it.
Good, so we agree that she has more Native American blood than average.
Maybe only 1/1024th, but that still doesn't make her native American. And at least she apologized for the charade. I have to give her credit for that.
No genetic makeup would make her Native American, she's not a tribe member. Which, by the way is what she actually apologized for; her ignorance of the qualifications.
The important thing is that we put away the false claim that the "average" American has as much or more Native American DNA than Elizabeth Warren.
I think the whole point about the average American detracts from the real issue, in that she was claiming to be Native American, not that she was possibly as little as 1/1024th as far as DNA or had a greater amount than the average American, and even if it was a high as 1/64th, that doesn't make someone a native American. It's not about the DNA, which is why she eventually apologized after the results of the DNA test. I'm sure she wishes she had never gone down that road.
LOL. This came up in another thread. It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American. She pulled a big con and was called out for it.
Yes, it did come up in another thread and several people explained that this claim is incorrect. You do not have a firm grasp on DNA testing or what the results mean if you believe this to be true. If you mean the average(mean) that is a silly statistic. if out of 100 people 1 is a pilot you wouldn't say, this group of people is 1% pilot on average. If you are suggesting it is the average(median), which I assume is the case given the context, you are wrong.
In a study of 160,000 23andme customers it was found thatQuote2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/sunday/dna-elizabeth-warren.html
But more importantly, genetic testing rarely tells us anything with certainty. It's possible for someone to have no genetic material which links them to a given ancestor and have a disproportionate amount from another ancestor. The test could have shown no link to any native Americans but that wouldn't prove that she has no native ancestors.
I find the article (and even more particularly the report it is about) to be informative. Our political system seems to be set up to elect people in the "Wings" leaving an "Exhausted Majority" vilifying the entirety of the party whose wings they disagree with the most strongly. It is particularly interesting that on both sides, the perception gap of independents is similar to the perception gaps of Democrats and Republicans. (I am a bit troubled that the report lumped "Traditional Liberals" in the "Exhausted Majority" but "Traditional Conservatives" in the right "Wing" - there doesn't seem to be any basis for this grouping.)This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/QuoteUnfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.
Rings quite true in this thread.
Sorry but this article is asinine. It truly doesn't matter if someone says I believe in X but votes for someone who enacts Not X. Many, many concepts could be subbed in for X here but the point remains the same.
These days, especially, it truly doesn't matter if in your heart of hearts you believe in democracy and the inherent value of all human beings but you find yourself voting for a fascist authoritarian regime separating families, treating asylums worse than criminals, and running big tanks through the heart of the capital city.
This is what is meant when folks say "intent doesn't matter." If your actions are hurting other people, you are still beholden to fucking stop them, even if you didn't mean to cause any hurt.
*sigh*
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/
I laugh at conservatism and progressivism, because both of them ignore reality when reality is inconvenient. They'd both rather be right than successful.
I think the whole point about the average American detracts from the real issue, in that she was claiming to be Native American, not that she was possibly as little as 1/1024th as far as DNA or had a greater amount than the average American, and even if it was a high as 1/64th, that doesn't make someone a native American. It's not about the DNA, which is why she eventually apologized after the results of the DNA test. I'm sure she wishes she had never gone down that road.
I agree. Which is why I said this:LOL. This came up in another thread. It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American. She pulled a big con and was called out for it.
Yes, it did come up in another thread and several people explained that this claim is incorrect. You do not have a firm grasp on DNA testing or what the results mean if you believe this to be true. If you mean the average(mean) that is a silly statistic. if out of 100 people 1 is a pilot you wouldn't say, this group of people is 1% pilot on average. If you are suggesting it is the average(median), which I assume is the case given the context, you are wrong.
In a study of 160,000 23andme customers it was found thatQuote2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/sunday/dna-elizabeth-warren.html
But more importantly, genetic testing rarely tells us anything with certainty. It's possible for someone to have no genetic material which links them to a given ancestor and have a disproportionate amount from another ancestor. The test could have shown no link to any native Americans but that wouldn't prove that she has no native ancestors.
When you first brought up the idea of the "average American". If you had read my comment and/or the linked article, we could have saved half a page for actual discussion rather than this nonsense. (which I acknowledge I have been a part of *hangs head in shame* :)
In related news I have zero Native American heritage so I guess I am not average ( :
I think the whole point about the average American detracts from the real issue, in that she was claiming to be Native American, not that she was possibly as little as 1/1024th as far as DNA or had a greater amount than the average American, and even if it was a high as 1/64th, that doesn't make someone a native American. It's not about the DNA, which is why she eventually apologized after the results of the DNA test. I'm sure she wishes she had never gone down that road.
I agree. Which is why I said this:LOL. This came up in another thread. It turns out the amount of American Indian ancestry DNA she has in her is within a range that overlaps the amount in an average American, which means she likely has no more American Indian DNA in her than the average American. She pulled a big con and was called out for it.
Yes, it did come up in another thread and several people explained that this claim is incorrect. You do not have a firm grasp on DNA testing or what the results mean if you believe this to be true. If you mean the average(mean) that is a silly statistic. if out of 100 people 1 is a pilot you wouldn't say, this group of people is 1% pilot on average. If you are suggesting it is the average(median), which I assume is the case given the context, you are wrong.
In a study of 160,000 23andme customers it was found thatQuote2.7 percent of their European customers had 1 percent or more Native American ancestry. The vast majority had no detectable Native American ancestry at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/opinion/sunday/dna-elizabeth-warren.html
But more importantly, genetic testing rarely tells us anything with certainty. It's possible for someone to have no genetic material which links them to a given ancestor and have a disproportionate amount from another ancestor. The test could have shown no link to any native Americans but that wouldn't prove that she has no native ancestors.
When you first brought up the idea of the "average American". If you had read my comment and/or the linked article, we could have saved half a page for actual discussion rather than this nonsense. (which I acknowledge I have been a part of *hangs head in shame* :)
This Elizabeth Warren denialism is amazing to watch. Kyle Schuant said it well:I laugh at conservatism and progressivism, because both of them ignore reality when reality is inconvenient. They'd both rather be right than successful.
Seriously, you are digging really, really, really deep into your liberal boots to stick up for her Native American shtick.
I understand that the claim is that because she was born male she has an advantage. I'm asking specifically what advantage is being claimed.The typical cismale will put on 15-20kg of lean mass from 12 to 21 even if all he does is sit around playing Call of Duty and masturbating five times a day, as many do. The cisfemale in that time will put on about 5-7kg of lean mass, she will gain much more fatty mass. If either of them are physically active in that time in a way that challenges their muscles and bones, such as lifting or contact sports, the mass gain will be greater. If they are the kid who faked a stomach ache to get out of PE class and who goes through a vegan or eating disorder phase, the lean mass gain will be less.
The alternative is, as I said, to allow ciswomen to juice up to 10nmol/dL, too. Personally I'm in favour of this.
I understand that the claim is that because she was born male she has an advantage. I'm asking specifically what advantage is being claimed.The typical cismale will put on 15-20kg of lean mass from 12 to 21 even if all he does is sit around playing Call of Duty and masturbating five times a day, as many do. The cisfemale in that time will put on about 5-7kg of lean mass, she will gain much more fatty mass. If either of them are physically active in that time in a way that challenges their muscles and bones, such as lifting or contact sports, the mass gain will be greater. If they are the kid who faked a stomach ache to get out of PE class and who goes through a vegan or eating disorder phase, the lean mass gain will be less.
Having been through a masculine adolescence provides a lasting advantage in muscle and bone mass. Obviously given normal human variation in size and athletic ability this will not be universally so - a 5ft narrow-framed cisman will probably lose a wrestling match with Serena Williams, let alone if that cisman becomes a transwoman. So we're just talking trends.
Likewise, a person who uses anabolic steroids will see significant lean mass gain, and much of this will remain even after ceasing steroids. So if we are to deny that having been through a masculine adolescence provides a lasting advantage, by this reasoning a ciswoman should be able to openly use anabolic steroids for several years, stop, and then compete in drug-tested sports. I think you would find that WADA would come up with a way to stop that. Now, if you want to say that testosterone does not give a lasting advantage, then you had best have a word with WADA, because they're spending a few hundred million dollars a year testing for its exogenous use.
At the moment there is a fairness issue in sports, because of inconsistent standards. Given the normal range of ciswomen's testosterone is 0.2-2.4nmol/dL, if a ciswoman tests as having 5+, this is taken as a positive doping result, and further tests are done to determine if she has been using exogenous testosterone. However, transwomen are allowed up to 10. This is interesting, because it varies by country, but basically if a cismale tests at 8 or under, this is considered a medical condition requiring exogenous testosterone. So the transwoman athlete is allowed to have testosterone levels higher than some men have naturally, twice as high as ciswomen are allowed to have, and 4-50 times as high as most ciswomen will naturally have.
Cismale natural testosterone levels = 8-40nmol/dL
Cisfemale = 0.2-2.4
Cisfemale positive doping result = 5+nmol/dL
Transfemale positive doping result = 10+nmol/dL
The reason transfemales are allowed higher levels is that while upon hormonal treatment they drop to 10 or under within a couple of years, it typically takes 10+ years (and the removal of the testes) for them to get under 5nmol/dL. Extraordinarily few people can keep up a top athletic performance for 10 years without competing, add in the emotional and social turmoil most transwomen will suffer during transition (as with any life change), and consider that most don't transition till after adolescence, so by the time it's all done they're in their 30s and past their athletic prime - this means that holding transwomen to the same standard as ciswomen would essentially exclude transwomen from open competition, though there'd still be a place in master's competition.
Thus, when considering transwomen and ciswomen and competition, there are basically 3 choices,
1. holding transwomen to the same standards as ciswomen, effectively excluding them from competition
2. allowing different standards to get transwomen competing, leading to unfair competition
3. allowing ciswomen to dope up to 10nmol/dL to match the transwomen
I believe it should be the same for transwomen with T above that allowed ciswomen. Excluding people from competition to ensure fairness is not in any way failing to respect them as human beings, or lacking sympathy for their person physical and mental health struggles. Saying, "transwomen should have under 5, too," is not oppressive of transwomen any more than "you can't do TRT and compete" is oppressive of elders. It's just about fair competition.
The alternative is, as I said, to allow ciswomen to juice up to 10nmol/dL, too. Personally I'm in favour of this. The most famous athletes who bring lots of money into the sport are never allowed to test positive, anyway, so it's mostly bullshit. But nobody's going to admit this, so we're left with the charade. If ciswomen have to play in the drug-testing charade, transwomen do, too. This may mean that very few transwomen get to compete. But I don't believe there's a human right to compete in sports. And nothing stops them competing in untested sports, anyway.
On-topic: a denial of the reality of the physiological differences between men and women is a key part of modern progressive ideology, just as a denial of climate change is a key part of modern conservative ideology. Both are wrong-headed, but as I said, the progressive denial of science is not as globally-damaging as the conservative denial of science, so it doesn't concern me as much.
Still waiting to hear what the American term for people of mixed First Nations/European stock is. i.e. Equivalent of Canadian Métis. Or do you not have one? The fur trade extended well into what is now American territory, so there must have been mixed marriages there as well. Do people just not acknowledge it?
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I think you're a freaking goon that's too far gone if you think the Betsy Ross flag is a hate symbol.I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
I think you're a freaking goon that's too far gone if you think the Betsy Ross flag is a hate symbol.
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
I think you're a freaking goon that's too far gone if you think the Betsy Ross flag is a hate symbol.
Huh? Who here said anything about the Betsy Ross flab being a hate symbol? @GuitarStv (not that he needs me to jump in on his behalf) definitely didn't say anything of the sort.
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
I think you're a freaking goon that's too far gone if you think the Betsy Ross flag is a hate symbol.
I think you're a freaking goon that's too far gone if you think the Betsy Ross flag is a hate symbol.I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.I'm curious why you purposefully brought this up.
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
I think you're a freaking goon that's too far gone if you think the Betsy Ross flag is a hate symbol.I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
gosh dang is this another thing that white supremacists have ruined? If so that sucks. A cool and historically important flag design.
It's a free country. I'm personally not into wearing logos of any sort, including the American flag so it doesn't affect me one way or another. The only American flag I sometimes wear is a flag pin on my lanyard. A flag logo on shoes that are close to the ground and sure to get dirty doesn't sit right with me personally. But again, it's a free country.
First white clothing. Then frogs, cute lil frogs. Tiki torches. Now the Betsy Ross flag. What's next?
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.I'm curious why you purposefully brought this up.
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.I'm curious why you purposefully brought this up.
The question posited by this thread is whether social conservatives are "always" wrong. I've said from the beginning that both social conservatives and social liberal's are sometimes wrong. Here, the left's policing of speech -- on the grounds of being "triggered" or "offended" -- is one of several examples in which liberals are wrong.
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.I'm curious why you purposefully brought this up.
The question posited by this thread is whether social conservatives are "always" wrong. I've said from the beginning that both social conservatives and social liberal's are sometimes wrong. Here, the left's policing of speech -- on the grounds of being "triggered" or "offended" -- is one of several examples in which liberals are wrong.
It's a free country. I'm personally not into wearing logos of any sort, including the American flag so it doesn't affect me one way or another. The only American flag I sometimes wear is a flag pin on my lanyard. A flag logo on shoes that are close to the ground and sure to get dirty doesn't sit right with me personally. But again, it's a free country.
First white clothing. Then frogs, cute lil frogs. Tiki torches. Now the Betsy Ross flag. What's next?
It's Kaepernik himself that I have a problem with. I almost stopped watching NFL football because of what he started with disrespecting the American flag and trying to turn it into something about race.
I don't have flags on my clothes or shoes, either. That's not really the concern for me.
It's a free country. I'm personally not into wearing logos of any sort, including the American flag so it doesn't affect me one way or another. The only American flag I sometimes wear is a flag pin on my lanyard. A flag logo on shoes that are close to the ground and sure to get dirty doesn't sit right with me personally. But again, it's a free country.
First white clothing. Then frogs, cute lil frogs. Tiki torches. Now the Betsy Ross flag. What's next?
It's Kaepernik himself that I have a problem with. I almost stopped watching NFL football because of what he started with disrespecting the American flag and trying to turn it into something about race.
I don't have flags on my clothes or shoes, either. That's not really the concern for me.
It's a free country. I'm personally not into wearing logos of any sort, including the American flag so it doesn't affect me one way or another. The only American flag I sometimes wear is a flag pin on my lanyard. A flag logo on shoes that are close to the ground and sure to get dirty doesn't sit right with me personally. But again, it's a free country.
First white clothing. Then frogs, cute lil frogs. Tiki torches. Now the Betsy Ross flag. What's next?
It's Kaepernik himself that I have a problem with. I almost stopped watching NFL football because of what he started with disrespecting the American flag and trying to turn it into something about race.
I don't have flags on my clothes or shoes, either. That's not really the concern for me.
I'm sorry. I work for the VA, my father and grandfather are veterans, and he did not disrespect the American Flag. He spoke with veterans to find out the respectful way to protest. Colin Kapernick is a decent person, honestly a role model and yes you can still be a patriot AND point out the faults of this country.
Still waiting to hear what the American term for people of mixed First Nations/European stock is. i.e. Equivalent of Canadian Métis. Or do you not have one? The fur trade extended well into what is now American territory, so there must have been mixed marriages there as well. Do people just not acknowledge it?
It's a free country. I'm personally not into wearing logos of any sort, including the American flag so it doesn't affect me one way or another. The only American flag I sometimes wear is a flag pin on my lanyard. A flag logo on shoes that are close to the ground and sure to get dirty doesn't sit right with me personally. But again, it's a free country.
First white clothing. Then frogs, cute lil frogs. Tiki torches. Now the Betsy Ross flag. What's next?
It's Kaepernik himself that I have a problem with. I almost stopped watching NFL football because of what he started with disrespecting the American flag and trying to turn it into something about race.
I don't have flags on my clothes or shoes, either. That's not really the concern for me.
I'm sorry. I work for the VA, my father and grandfather are veterans, and he did not disrespect the American Flag. He spoke with veterans to find out the respectful way to protest. Colin Kapernick is a decent person, honestly a role model and yes you can still be a patriot AND point out the faults of this country.
@FIREstache, now that you know Kaepernick went out of his way to ensure that he was not disrespecting our military or the flag, and made it clear that doing so was not his intent, do you feel any differently about the situation?
It's a free country. I'm personally not into wearing logos of any sort, including the American flag so it doesn't affect me one way or another. The only American flag I sometimes wear is a flag pin on my lanyard. A flag logo on shoes that are close to the ground and sure to get dirty doesn't sit right with me personally. But again, it's a free country.
First white clothing. Then frogs, cute lil frogs. Tiki torches. Now the Betsy Ross flag. What's next?
It's Kaepernik himself that I have a problem with. I almost stopped watching NFL football because of what he started with disrespecting the American flag and trying to turn it into something about race.
I don't have flags on my clothes or shoes, either. That's not really the concern for me.
I'm sorry. I work for the VA, my father and grandfather are veterans, and he did not disrespect the American Flag. He spoke with veterans to find out the respectful way to protest. Colin Kapernick is a decent person, honestly a role model and yes you can still be a patriot AND point out the faults of this country.
@FIREstache, now that you know Kaepernick went out of his way to ensure that he was not disrespecting our military or the flag, and made it clear that doing so was not his intent, do you feel any differently about the situation?
I witnessed what he did multiple time as well as seeing other players do the same thing. I also heard what Kaepernick had to say about it. It was certainly disrespectful. This is old news to me.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/disrespecting-the-flag-is-a-disgraceful-way-to-protest-trump/2017/09/25/506a1d4c-a228-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html
This Elizabeth Warren denialism is amazing to watch. Kyle Schuant said it well:I laugh at conservatism and progressivism, because both of them ignore reality when reality is inconvenient. They'd both rather be right than successful.
Seriously, you are digging really, really, really deep into your liberal boots to stick up for her Native American shtick.
I think you're making some incorrect assumptions here. I can only speak for myself, but I'm one of the posters who's been "sticking up" for her and I don't particularly like her as a politician. In fact, the first time I started digging into this issue, it was to criticize her. What I found suggested that the claims I was reading were blown way out of proportion.
Now my general opinion of the situation is that I still think slightly less of her for it, but it's basically a non-issue. The reason I speak up when I see claims like those made in this thread is because they are factually incorrect or a misrepresentation of reality. That matters to me.
I’ve wondered why conservatives are so gung-ho to wear flag clothes. I find it quite disrespectful of the American flag.
...snip
that the Betsy Ross flag is, in fact, a white nationalist hate symbol;
that the Betsy Ross flag is, in fact, a white nationalist hate symbol;
The person you accused of saying this and several others asked where you got this idea. No one other than you ever said it.
Do you not read responses to your posts?
They said it was used by racist groups, that is all.
I'm curious what the libs in this thread think about the recent Kaepernik/Betsy Ross flag issue.
I had to google what you were talking about on this, but it sounds like Kaepernik is one of Nike's spokesmen and didn't want to be associated with what he sees as a symbol used by racist groups on shoes that he endorses. Nike listened to him, and pulled the shoe. Their stock climbed after doing so.
So . . . not really much to think about. A private company made a calculated decision that they felt would increase their popularity and sales. Is there an angle I'm missing?
I think you're a freaking goon that's too far gone if you think the Betsy Ross flag is a hate symbol.
?
Actually, I didn't say it was used by racist groups. I said that that appears to be what Kaepernick believed.
Actually, I didn't say it was used by racist groups. I said that that appears to be what Kaepernick believed.
Quiet, you liberal elitist goon :)
I know a lot of liberals, people who are a lot more liberal than me. These are not their burning issues, understatement. Maybe these are the burning issues to conservatives?
Actually, I didn't say it was used by racist groups. I said that that appears to be what Kaepernick believed.
Quiet, you liberal elitist goon :)
I've never been called a goon before and had to look it up.
Goon: a silly, foolish, or eccentric person.
Hard to get too upset when the shoe fits. :P
I know a lot of liberals, people who are a lot more liberal than me. These are not their burning issues, understatement. Maybe these are the burning issues to conservatives?
Nope, they are the issues conservative media has identified can be used to stoke fear, rage, disgust etc. with their viewers and feed into their tribalism. As long as they keep people all in a rage about a man taking a knee, and get them to "side" with the right, then the people can't be distracted by the real problems going on in this country and will excuse just about anything.
Actually, I didn't say it was used by racist groups. I said that that appears to be what Kaepernick believed.
Quiet, you liberal elitist goon :)
I've never been called a goon before and had to look it up.
Goon: a silly, foolish, or eccentric person.
Hard to get too upset when the shoe fits. :P
Wait, you live in Canada and don't know what a goon is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcer_(ice_hockey)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goon_(film)
Actually, I didn't say it was used by racist groups. I said that that appears to be what Kaepernick believed.
Quiet, you liberal elitist goon :)
I've never been called a goon before and had to look it up.
Goon: a silly, foolish, or eccentric person.
Hard to get too upset when the shoe fits. :P
Wait, you live in Canada and don't know what a goon is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcer_(ice_hockey)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goon_(film)
Probably showing my elitist roots here, but I'm not really a hockey fan. Also prefer Aunt Jemima to real maple syrup, so I'm definitely going to Canadian hell.
Also prefer Aunt Jemima to real maple syrup
Also prefer Aunt Jemima to real maple syrup
This is the most offensive opinion of the thread.
Also prefer Aunt Jemima to real maple syrup
This is the most offensive opinion of the thread.
New topic, The One Million Moms (actually there are only about 70K of them registered) have been on a rampage over Toy Story 4 Apparently there is a scene in the movie where same-sex moms drop off a child at a school. OMM is incensed! A quick look at their site indicates other objects of their fury: a same-sex marriage of an animated rate teacher in PBS' beloved long-running Arthur series. Chips Ahoy cookies for some gender bending commercial. A particular area of concern are the widely popular Drag Queen Story Hours. Oh, and women having a legal medical procedure in (at the moment) 49 states. They'd like the shutdowns to continue.
Think of the children they cry! But not the children in cages at the border. Or the children from low income families who experience hunger on weekends and school vacations because of real food insecurity. Or children without homes altogether. Or how the climate is changing. Or how guns in the home kill more children then they purportedly protectd.The OMM only think of the non-existent "damage" their children will (not) experience because of a 5 second clip in a Pixar movie.
New topic, The One Million Moms (actually there are only about 70K of them registered) have been on a rampage over Toy Story 4 Apparently there is a scene in the movie where same-sex moms drop off a child at a school. OMM is incensed! A quick look at their site indicates other objects of their fury: a same-sex marriage of an animated rate teacher in PBS' beloved long-running Arthur series. Chips Ahoy cookies for some gender bending commercial. A particular area of concern are the widely popular Drag Queen Story Hours. Oh, and women having a legal medical procedure in (at the moment) 49 states. They'd like the shutdowns to continue.
Think of the children they cry! But not the children in cages at the border. Or the children from low income families who experience hunger on weekends and school vacations because of real food insecurity. Or children without homes altogether. Or how the climate is changing. Or how guns in the home kill more children then they purportedly protectd.The OMM only think of the non-existent "damage" their children will (not) experience because of a 5 second clip in a Pixar movie.
Kids should not be watching porn. But the idea that a picture of a naked lady poses more of a threat to my kids than any of the other issues I mentioned is downright laughable.
I think you are hitting on it. In Europe there are television and print ads with tasteful nudity. I have no problem with that at all. I think what is not good is sex acts combined with violence, which seems to happen a lot, even in tv shows (csi, action shows etc) as well as horror movies. I think US society in general is a lot more violence-oriented in our popular culture while loving depictions of couples and sex are rare and would probably be rated x while much more violent material is R.Kids should not be watching porn. But the idea that a picture of a naked lady poses more of a threat to my kids than any of the other issues I mentioned is downright laughable.
This is actually an interesting point to discuss.
First of all - I absolutely don't think that kids should be watching porn . . . but the reason that I'm against porn isn't because I think sex is somehow bad and kids shouldn't be exposed to it . . . it's the way typical porn depicts sex. It's usually very aggressive/violent, the woman is invariably submissive, there's usually a weird/disturbing vibe going on. But on balance I believe that a kid being exposed to several dozen killings (as a kid sees while watching a generally accepted for kids show like Star Wars - those storm troopers and tie fighters add up after a while) is likely more damaging than being exposed to a sex scene where both people act in a loving way. Everyone has genitals, and nearly everyone is going to use their genitals during their life. The vast majority of us will never kill another human being. Why are we normalizing the latter, but terrified of the former for kids?
Kids should not be watching porn. But the idea that a picture of a naked lady poses more of a threat to my kids than any of the other issues I mentioned is downright laughable.
Shoot, my cousin posted a photo/ meme to FB this weekend about the damn Democrats caring so much about illegals, and look at this picture of an AMERICAN mom and kid sleeping outdoors cuz they are homeless and Democrats don't care!New topic, The One Million Moms (actually there are only about 70K of them registered) have been on a rampage over Toy Story 4 Apparently there is a scene in the movie where same-sex moms drop off a child at a school. OMM is incensed! A quick look at their site indicates other objects of their fury: a same-sex marriage of an animated rate teacher in PBS' beloved long-running Arthur series. Chips Ahoy cookies for some gender bending commercial. A particular area of concern are the widely popular Drag Queen Story Hours. Oh, and women having a legal medical procedure in (at the moment) 49 states. They'd like the shutdowns to continue.
Think of the children they cry! But not the children in cages at the border. Or the children from low income families who experience hunger on weekends and school vacations because of real food insecurity. Or children without homes altogether. Or how the climate is changing. Or how guns in the home kill more children then they purportedly protectd.The OMM only think of the non-existent "damage" their children will (not) experience because of a 5 second clip in a Pixar movie.
People like that just wear me out.