The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: GuitarStv on June 11, 2019, 01:09:31 PM

Title: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 11, 2019, 01:09:31 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 11, 2019, 01:43:24 PM
Well, considering I literally just saw this article in The American Conservative, arguing that believing that This Is How Things Are Done is preserving our safety and the Very Foundations Of Our Society...

Which is pretty much the argument every pro-slavery, pro-prohibition, pro-war-on-drugs, anti-women's rights, anti-civil rights, anti-gay rights, anti-interracial marriage, anti-immigration anti-freedom of religion, makes and pretty much always has made...

I think they would say they've always been right right, because they I guess would rather we go back to the time when straight white dudes were the only ones with 100% freedom of agency and most of the decision/law making power. They would say it was better back then.

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/roger-scruton-time-the-way-things-are-done/?fbclid=IwAR1N9ymCN5KF5MuEz-D3JOhxSB_y5fIvbHuaYrHrUWEEkcLBR-oGe4z5_iE

I don't really think they care about other people's freedoms. And frankly, I think more of them than would admit it would rather that other people have fewer rights than they do.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: madgeylou on June 11, 2019, 01:43:44 PM
Yes. Lol
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on June 11, 2019, 01:50:15 PM
Yes. Lol

This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: madgeylou on June 11, 2019, 01:57:31 PM
Yes. Lol

This is the only acceptable answer, on this board anyway.

I mean, you could address OP’s questions if you think social conservatives are sometimes right?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 11, 2019, 02:00:58 PM
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.
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: dcheesi on June 11, 2019, 02:28:10 PM
Definitionally, conservatives resist change (they seek to "conserve" the status quo, as they perceive it). If we re-frame the question as "do all social changes that earn broad support ultimately succeed?", then the answer is obviously "no". Therefore, conservatives are not "always wrong".

In terms of our own perception of these things, I think there's some survivorship bias at work. Failed social experiments can sometimes be rolled back, but just as often they lead to a collapse of the society implementing them. The fact that our society is still relatively whole and functional suggests that most of our past social changes have been successful to date. The fall of the USSR, on the other hand, suggests that at least some of theirs were not.

The fact is that our current Western culture exists in large part because it changed in the right ways at the right times, at least relative to other competing cultures. But, just as in the stock market, "Past Performance Is No Guarantee of Future Results"...
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on June 11, 2019, 02:40:13 PM
Prior discussion of this topic

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/why-do-social-political-views-only-%27evolve%27-one-way/
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 11, 2019, 02:50:41 PM
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.

I'm not arguing that people who support social conservatism are incapable of doing good.  Just that social conservatism itself always appears opposed to good.  But let's look at current fiscal conservative hot button topics.  How are family, kindness, and community enhanced by preventing a trans-gendered person from using the bathroom of his/her choosing?


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.

This sounds more like an argument in favor of fiscal conservatism with which I have no real problem.  One of the current hot topic issues for social conservatism is preventing abortion . . . which completely opposes what you're describing above.  Someone concerned with the importance of self-reliance would be happy to leave a fetus to make it's own way based on it's own strength.


4. If UBI existed, I'd be a good example of point 3.

Again, I believe that you are mixing up fiscal and social conservatism.  UBI was originally conceived as a fiscal conservative replacement for government programs.


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 you.  But I'm not sure that the social conservative approach of trying to hide information about sex from children and young adults through misinformation, religious indoctrination/shame, and campaigning against sex ed makes things any better.  I'm not sure how fighting to prevent access to birth control or condoms makes things any better.

It would seem that a much better approach would have nothing to do with social conservatism or liberalism.  Tell children the truth when they ask about it, and teach respect for other's bodies by being a good example yourself.


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.

First of all, it's a mistake to believe that someone has to be socially conservative to be religious.  (In fact, many religious people opposed the social conservative movement to keep slaves because of their religion.)

If solid enduring relationships naturally form around a sexual connection, then I don't really understand what your concern is here.  If it naturally forms, why is religion necessary?


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.

Yeah, I have no issue with social conservatives who see marriage as important and good.  I have issue with social conservatives who see marriage as important and good, so they want to deny it to others.  In the past because of race or country of origin and currently because of sex.  That's a fucked up viewpoint to hold.


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.

Again, I think you're confusing social conservatism with being religious.  They're sometimes (often these days?) related, but not always.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 11, 2019, 03:09:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 11, 2019, 03:42:05 PM
Huh.

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. Which is quite puzzling given the way contemporary social conservatism/evangelical prosperity gospel expresses itself currently in the United States, especially.

And many of the others seem to make a false dichotomy between a supposed conservative strength of character and a...??? liberal laxness/lack of moral commitment to institutions, I guess? Which I also find sort of non-convincing.
 

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FINate on June 11, 2019, 04:17:47 PM
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/
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 11, 2019, 04:42:36 PM
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? 

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FINate on June 11, 2019, 05:02:11 PM
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?

Having empathy doesn't necessarily mean agreeing with someone. Nor am I necessarily arguing for compromise (though that is often the right thing). In the context of discourse it means understanding where they're coming from,  their motivations and values, and being able to put yourself in their position even though you disagree with it. It's one of the great debating skills we seem to have lost as a society, the ability to argue for a point one disagrees with. Because even if you disagree vehemently, they are human. When we reduce people to nothing more than caricatures it is usually followed by dehumanization. It's propaganda 101. If we can only empathize with those we agree with this is not empathy, but rather group think.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 11, 2019, 05:44:13 PM

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?)

Not my nostalgia. I was trying to express feelings that friends I've had seemed to feel. Specifically, a sincere passionate belief that life is better when people have warm secure relationships; that families should provide them; that communities should support them.

Do I agree that their expected means of providing these warm relationships is the only way? Hell no. Especially if it goes too far - scorning relationships that don't follow some religious format, for example. Have I argued with some of them about gay relationships, or asked probing questions to determine the source of their feelings? Hell yes. There's a difference between understanding and espousing. I prefer to support all healthy relationships, not just ones that look like Norman Rockwell. Looking forward to First Gentleman Chasten Buttigieg...

Personally, I've noticed that it's easy to go too far when criticizing. From either side. So in this thread, I'm asking my friends to reach for understanding.

PS. Oops, lost the first part of this post. Glad @Kris quoted it below.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 11, 2019, 05:54:01 PM
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.

I appreciate your saying so, BicycleB. I’ve been attacked here a few times recently, and I don’t feel like those attacks are justified. But it’s nice to have some affirmation of that.

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?

I recognize that these questions are probably not the same. But this post addresses them as if they were. So we may be arguing at cross purposes in this thread.

I find contemporary conservative arguments mostly hypocritical, for the reasons I outlined above. I wish they weren’t. Hypocrisy helps no one.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FIREstache on June 11, 2019, 05:56:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 11, 2019, 06:03:02 PM
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.

 Yeah. But this is the off-topic forum. So... :shrugs:
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: EricL on June 11, 2019, 06:14:43 PM
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.”
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 11, 2019, 06:22:55 PM

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
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 11, 2019, 06:39:41 PM


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.

Agreed.



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.

Agreed that old school marriages routinely in practice oppressed women and pooped on their dreams. Bad. I strongly agree on not pushing women into marriage.

Yet I still feel that today's individualist, social media based, corporate property mediated, advertise-everything-with-a-pretty-woman-and-make-porn-available-to-12-year-olds society also pressures young women into sex, sexual display, and sexual identity too quickly, with too little community support. I don't know how to make that community support. I just feel like the pressure's there and isn't right either.

As stated previously, not arguing All Conservatives Good. Relationships need better support than old school marriages gave women. Better than a lot of marriages give women now. Better than a lot of gay marriages get now, too.

That said, the conservatives I've met were sincere in wanting secure and productive relationships for all. I differed with them on means. Perhaps with a more understanding society, we can get agreement on means that produces support for a wider range of relationships. To get agreement from Unenlightened People Who Need to Listen To Us, we too need understanding. Maybe even empathy.

Easy for me to say, not being the oppressed party? You nailed it. I will exit.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 11, 2019, 06:49:45 PM
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.


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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 11, 2019, 07:07:05 PM
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/

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 11, 2019, 07:07:07 PM
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.

That may be, but I'm not seeking a debate.

I do think my counterexamples are sufficient to make the case that social conservatives aren't always wrong. Your examples suggest that social conservatives are at least sometimes wrong. I agree that's true. But your title says "always." A single counterexample is sufficient to disprove that from a debate view.

What I'd rather have is understanding. I seem to be more familiar with individual conservatives, so one way to take my examples is as clues to investigate.


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.

I agree that plenty of policies espoused by social conservatives are distateful. To make sense of them... not sure how to get there, but I got there by listening, eating dinner with people after work, asking questions, visiting churches, etc. (Growing up in America's Bible Belt probably helped too!) If you would like a shortcut, my original long post is as honest a summary of feelings from real people I've met that I can provide. Maybe ponder it rather than argue against it would help?

Fwiw, the video I posted above (bottom of reply 19) is in point re how liberals can understand conservatives. Not sure if it helps though. My personal experience does support the idea that there is a sort of logical framework behind social conservatism too, though. Just a different logic than you or I would probably use - different predicates, and possibly different criteria for determining truth.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FINate on June 11, 2019, 08:59:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: jeninco on June 11, 2019, 09:06:39 PM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 11, 2019, 09:13:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FINate on June 11, 2019, 09:22:48 PM
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.

Truth != fact...there's an important difference. Imposing Western positivism on ancient cultures and thereby declaring their written and/or oral tradition false is cultural imperialism.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 11, 2019, 09:58:31 PM

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.

You heard me! No, they're not conservative. They've been about 40 years ahead of the zeitgeist for much of the past couple centuries, in ways that history (and I suspect GuitarStv) mostly look upon kindly. Quakers with stations on the Underground Railroad, etc.

So as I keep repeating, I am pretty liberal (points 6 and 7). I just...don't personally believe... that social conservatives are always wrong... (and don't think that rehearsing rhetoric that says they are builds a better society. So I am offering an alternative thought process. Hoping to build a better society. One thought at a time. Such as "social conservatives have something useful to say sometimes too, and even if not, we're better off understanding than castigating.")

Yes, I know DIY churchy liberal hippies too. And gay-welcoming dry churchy liberals, as a bonus. I don't confuse them with right wing social conservatives. I do think there's more connection than a lot of people recognize. And that dividing them along these basically partisan lines is exactly what a wise conservative AND a wise liberal would oppose. Exactly what the Putins and other anti-democratic provocateurs want. Hence my wading so deeply into this thread.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 11, 2019, 10:35:07 PM
Imposing Western positivism on ancient cultures and thereby declaring their written and/or oral tradition false is cultural imperialism.

I'm not imposing anything.  If your scripture says the world was created in six days, it is wrong.  There is no room for written and/or oral tradition in that assessment, the scripture is either mistaken or deliberately lying or both. 

Sometimes we tell ourselves beautiful lies for good reasons (see: all modern fiction) but it's not cultural imperialism to note that they are lies.  I'm not suppressing your stories.  I'm not supplanting your myths.  I'm noting that they are factually incorrect, and as such should be kept distinctly separate from what we teach children about the real history of our planet. 

Scripture belongs in the literature section, not the geology section.  By all means study it and teach it, just don't call it fact.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FrugalToque on June 12, 2019, 04:51:26 AM
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 would answer this question with, "No."

True, many of the major advances in human rights have occurred against the social conservative status quo.  That's what happens when rich people in politics use social conservatives against the forward progress of morality and science.  So you have a bunch of jackasses telling you gay people aren't human or women belong in the home.

But if you separate social conservatism from the politics of social conservatism, I don't think the movement is always wrong.

Should 10 year olds have cell phones that turn them into little fronds waving in the sea of even more peer pressure than we ever had to deal with when we were kids?  Clearly: no.

I imagine I could come up with more questions to which social conservatives have correct or healthier views.

This may be a case of "counting the hits and not the misses" because the failures of social conservatives to get it right on gay rights, racial equality, sexual equality and other such issues are so much more prominent than any useful successes.

Toque.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Malkynn on June 12, 2019, 06:24:25 AM
I don't necessarily see any particular views as socially conservative.

Social conservatism is about a resistance to social change, so it will resist whatever the major progressive movements of the day happen to be.

As a result, history will always generally be unkind to conservatives, because historically, they will typically end up on the wrong end of successful social movements.

However, that resistance also plays a critical role in tempering and moderating social change. Not all social progress is good, not all preservation of cultural norms is bad.

The frankenmonster of "Conservative" horrors happening today is not necessarily a traditional social conservative construct, it's actually a rather extreme social movement, which in a way is promoting radical social progress in a terrifying direction.

The Alt Right, racist, transphobic, anti women's rights bullshit is not trying to preserve anything, they're pushing a modern hate-filled agenda, and placing a lot of us "leftists" into an arguably conservative position of defending what we see as social norms: human dignity and whatnot, pretty old school values.

Defending Roe v Wade can easily be described as a socially conservative position. It's the defense of a longstanding law that had become accepted as an entrenched social construct.

Likewise in Canada, challenging our universal healthcare would be a radical political move against a core societal norm.

Is it really "progressive" to staunchly defend policies from half a century ago???

Most of the people in my world are staunchly conservative and are generally slow to adapt to social change and are extremely cautious in accepting new norms, but they usually come around gradually. They're not hate filled, they're not radical anti-anything, they're just...socially conservative.

I'm not conservative, but I look forward to a day when I am, because it will mean that society has progressed past me. I'm actually getting really sick of always being on the progressive side, I'm ready to start aging into my "well, I'm not quite sure about X social movement, it gives me pause" years.

That's not to say that I don't know some MAGA hat-wearing, vitriol-spewing, hate filled people who identify as socially conservative, but they're generally viewed as large "C" Conservative extremists, not actual conservatives, who are pretty cautious by nature...cuz that's the whole point.

I think if anything, the current frothing political climate has illustrated how outdated those constructs of social conservatism vs social progressivism are. They really don't fit anymore with respect to the actual political system and have lost a lot of their meaning in the context of the clusterfuck within which we live right now.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 12, 2019, 07:09:28 AM
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.

I could go on, but there are many examples of progressives attempting to address a social issue and only making it worse. Obviously there are conservative examples of this as well, which gets to my larger point...

***

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.

The beauty of how this country was supposed to work was that the founders recognized that this was a vast land to be inhabited by people from all religions, cultures, etc. So they established a federalism whereby the local government would be the most important, state governments next, and then a limited federal government. If you wanted to change this, you convinced the country through a democratic process to amend the constitution. This meant we could create a majority out of extreme diversity, and ultimately get along despite our vast differences.

87% of England is English. 93% of Italy is Italians. 94% of China is Chinese.

The Founders realized this type of hegemony was never going to be the case in America, and thus established a federalism whereby these groups could be governed by local governments rather than the federal government. It was basically a predecessor to the EU.

The idea that a person in Maine would have the same view as, say, a person in Texas about a complicated issue like abortion is insane. So the founders created a system whereby different cultures could aggregate in different places, and the federal government would largely stay out of their way. If society had progressed on a certain issue, the constitution could be amended.

The progressives mostly demolished this around the New Deal era. We now live in a world governed largely by:
     
That *cough* about the Commerce Clause -- using an example here -- conservatives would never have been able to implement the war on drugs had progressives not pushed cases through the Supreme Court in the 1930s vastly, vastly, vastly, vastly increasing Congress's Article I powers. But I digress.

***

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 12, 2019, 07:34:36 AM
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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 12, 2019, 07:52:43 AM
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.

Liberal != social liberal, and conservative != social conservative.


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.


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.

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?


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.

Here you appear to be conflating social liberalism with fiscal liberalism.  They are different.

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.

Again, social liberalism has little to do with empowering the federal government.  I believe you're confusing social with fiscal liberalism.


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.

I believe that part of the problem here is that you are failing to seperate fiscal conservatism (which tends to object to expansion of powers of the federal government and increased government spending) from social conservatism (which tends to focus on limiting freedoms to implement/institute 'moral 'rules).

Most conservatives I know are not anti everything stated.  But those who are passionate about social conservatism typically are.

Part of the problem is that in North America fiscal and social conservatism seems to be lumped together most of the time, so it's easy to get one confused with the other.  They are separate and distinct.  It's possible to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal, and socially liberal and fiscally conservative.



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 agree, partly.  The idea that 'conservative are always wrong' is loony.  But 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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Malkynn on June 12, 2019, 08:02:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sherr on June 12, 2019, 08:08:42 AM
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.

I disagree actually. "Social conservatives" by definition are trying to impose their conservative values on society. Which means trying to force others to live by their values, which you can see in every example listed in this thread so far. Which is not to say their values are necessarily wrong or undesirable, but that the expectation for others to live by their mores is an inextricable part of social conservatism.

"Social liberals" by contrast always seem to be on the side of allowing "society" the "liberty" of deciding for themselves how they want to live their lives. The only exceptions to this rule that I can think of are marginal cases where the question is "does one person have the liberty to discriminate against another", like cake bakers and gay people for example.

I think if you generally support other's right not to live by your mores you are a de-facto "social liberal", even if that is not what you choose to call yourself or if you disagree with the choices others make.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 12, 2019, 08:11:31 AM
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? 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Malkynn on June 12, 2019, 08:15:41 AM
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?

I'm not saying that at all. You're putting words in my mouth.
I'm saying that all policies have some kind of economic impact, not that all policies are driven by economic impact.

I'm saying that you can't 100% separate the ideologies and the finances the way that's trying to be done in this thread.

Student loans are a 100% fiscal policy? There was no social ideology behind it? I don't think so.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sherr on June 12, 2019, 08:18:00 AM
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.

I think it's a fair point in favor of "social conservatives". The argument goes that the people in favor of the eugenics were the "scientists" of the day and people who in favor of "making society progress", whereas the people who were opposed were the religious conservatives who valued "God's plan" and saw it (correctly in this case) as an attack on "the value of human life".

Of course the Nazi's also explicitly used Christianity to make people favor eugenics and hate the Jews, so it's a bit of a murky issue.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Psychstache on June 12, 2019, 08:19:46 AM
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 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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 12, 2019, 08:30:18 AM
I agree that on both sides of the aisle, there are some individuals who feel more strongly about govt policies, some about public finances/taxes, some about individual impacts. But to say that social and fiscal conservatism are purely separate is baloney. So is the liberal equivalent. There are plenty of people whose views in one area are motivated by their views in another. I know them personally. The different sides of each perspective overlap at the level of individuals, movements, and history.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 12, 2019, 08:33:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 12, 2019, 08:44:57 AM
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.



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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Malkynn on June 12, 2019, 08:51:57 AM
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.

Totally 100% agree.

I was just taking issue with other posters examples being rejected as purely fiscal policy examples, which they aren't necessarily.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sherr on June 12, 2019, 08:57:18 AM
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".
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 12, 2019, 09:49:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Noodle on June 12, 2019, 09:50:45 AM

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?
[/quote]

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 12, 2019, 09:55:07 AM

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.
[/quote]

Except the south was never, ever going to do that. Their whole economy was based on free slave labor. So... I think Psychstache's question kind of still stands.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 12, 2019, 09:58:36 AM
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.

That's goofy reasoning though.

It would have been less disruptive if everyone let Hitler take over the world rather than fight back.  I mean, eventually the Nazis would have done the right thing, right?

If the south had any intention of giving up slaves, they had ample opportunity to do so before the civil war.  They didn't, and by that choice caused the civil war.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 12, 2019, 10:02:15 AM



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


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: shenlong55 on June 12, 2019, 10:07:55 AM
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, 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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 12, 2019, 10:16:28 AM
So what is the conservative answer?  I know they absolutely do not want the federal government to handle it

I call bullshit.  Conservative absolutely DO want the federal government to handle it, as long as they handle it in the way they support.  Conservatives love the idea of states rights until a state legalizes gay marriage or passes a transgender bathroom bill, then suddenly they DEMAND federal intervention in the states legislative authority.

At this point I think we can all stop pretending that conservatives in general and the "conservative" political party in particular care anything at all about their ideals.  It's just about whipping voters to maintain political power, and they'll do whatever it takes to get there.  Mitch McConnell made the case that Obama shouldn't be able to nominate supreme court justices in his last year in office, then last week laughed and said OF COURSE Trump should be able to nominate supreme court justices in his last year in office.  There is no coherent philosophy or ideals here, just political expediency.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 12, 2019, 10:36:18 AM
@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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 12, 2019, 11:31:19 AM


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.





Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Malkynn on June 12, 2019, 11:39:35 AM


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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 12, 2019, 11:40:35 AM


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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: SwordGuy on June 12, 2019, 11:43:27 AM
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".

I live in NC and can testify that this analysis is spot on.   
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 12, 2019, 11:45:05 AM
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.

I wasn't slandering conservatives in general, I was slandering specific politicians who enjoy the support of conservatives in general.  Like old Mitch, the worst kind of partisan hypocrite imaginable.  I concede that there are individual conservatives amongst the citizenry who hold sincere beliefs, but as long as they continue to vote for opportunistic and deceitful politicians I have zero empathy for their perspective.  Don Trump is an affront to everything conservatives believe in, and yet they flocked to him in the 2016 election and thus lost all claim to moral consistency.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 12, 2019, 12:04:42 PM
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".

I also think this type of preemptive power is bullshit, and I don't think it was the way the federalism was intended to work. The more local the better. NYC should be able to ban large popcorns and San Francisco should be able to control rents (or whatever they want to do).

To me, the more local the better, and that is how I believe it was originally intended to work.

***

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."

***

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.

Thank you, Malkynn, for saying what I was trying to say in far less words.

My point to @GuitarStv and @sol -- I think it's an incredible intellectual dodge to read my post and reply with, "meh, that's fiscal liberalism." The bloating of the federal government reflected society and was driven by the progressive movement. It has now led to a structure that has federalized *social* issues that were never meant to be *federal* issues.

I am talking structure and process, not outcomes. And those structures and processes cannot logically, legally, or reasonably be divorced from the issues themselves.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FINate on June 12, 2019, 12:11:07 PM
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?

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.

Yes, agree with the bold above. 3500 years in the future, assuming we haven't destroyed the earth, people will look back on our science and say "wow, they got it really wrong in so many ways" and they will be right to say we were empirically wrong. But I hope they are willing to grant us the understanding that we did the best with the information available instead of casting us off as irrelevant. It's the failure of many moderns (though not you specifically) to grant this grace to the ancients that is cultural imperialism. Yes, their science was wrong, in terms of their understanding of the cosmos and biology and geology and such. But that was not the purpose of their texts. They did not have the technological sophistication we have, but they were not dumb and were as intelligent as us moderns. A lower percentage of the ancient world was literate, but of those who were many were literary geniuses. They did not have TV or video games or other distractions, so they spent most of their time reading and writing. They authored, compiled, and edited writings over 1000+ years, expertly weaving together narrative, poetry, symbolism, design patterns, literary allusion, and culture references (Hebrew and the neighboring cultures). Its a collection of anthologies designed for a lifetime of meditation and reflection. I think part of the problem we modern's have with ancient texts is that we've lost our literary imagination so we approach subtle and complex multi-layered texts with a modern concrete brutalism that does great violence to the text. And so we say "bah, this is bullshit!" because we don't get the simple answers we expect from a people we wrongly assume were simpletons. I should add that believers and non-believers are both guilty of this, as I have been in the past and will continue to doing even as I peel back the layers of my own anachronistic projections.

So I read the creation accounts "literally" in the sense that these are a very specific genre of literature, namely ancient near east cosmology, which requires traveling to a different time and culture (including neighboring cultures) to interpret and understand the deeper truths within.

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.

Nor do I see the point in trying to criminalize it. But before you suggest that I'm breaking with social conservatism :) I should add that I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. I worry about the extremely high levels of THC in modern breeds of cannabis and what the long term effects are on the brain and, in the case of smoking, the lungs. So this is where I see the kernel of truth in conservatism on this issue, not their desire to criminalize it, but instead a push back on our headlong rush to promote a drug as harmless or even healthy (to be clear, there are probably some health benefits, but these things are never completely unambiguous). IMO, it would be prudent to legislate THC levels, maybe not back to 1980s levels, but maybe like 15% or even less.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: shenlong55 on June 12, 2019, 12:49:37 PM
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."

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).
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: EricL on June 12, 2019, 12:51:04 PM
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Psychstache on June 12, 2019, 01:40:01 PM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Psychstache on June 12, 2019, 01:53:49 PM
@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.

I think the doubt comes from the widespread absences of the holders of these ideals when it comes to chosen representatives.

In my neck of the woods, I often focus on and participate in Republican primaries, because the reality is that in many parts of my hood, R primaries are essentially the general elections. Democrats either don't run a candidate or they are given no support and it is a fool's errand.

I sometimes see candidates that who, at least at a glance, seem to be like the more nuanced, thoughtful conservatives that you mention. You know what happens? They get obliterated on election day by a primary opponent who goes on and on about bathroom bills, welfare queens, and Roe v Wade. When given the choice, the conservatives in my area seem to prefer and promote the champions of bigotry to be their representative.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: J Boogie on June 12, 2019, 02:51:16 PM



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

Minnesota's own Pierce Butler, a devout Catholic (and presumably, a social conservative) was the lone dissenter. From wikipedia:

"Holmes believed that Butler's religion influenced his thinking in Buck, remarking that "Butler knows this is good law, I wonder whether he will have the courage to vote with us in spite of his religion."




Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: EricL on June 12, 2019, 02:58:58 PM

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.

Conjectural history is conjectural.  I believe it may be possible but if there was any way to make it play out I wouldn’t bet money on it.  I’ve lived in the South too. 

I will say that civil rights in America isn’t as straightforward as people think.  There have been significant leaps forward but significant regression too over the years.  Abolition saw a lot of advances for black people that only to lapse once it ended.  From 1870 to 1887, 17 years, there were 15 black representatives elected to the federal government.  All from Southern states.  From 1889 to 1953, 44 years, there were 10.  None from Southern states. Most people would even say we’re in a regressive phase now.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 12, 2019, 06:33:38 PM
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.

I'm not entirely following you on the nuance of this situation, so you draw the boundaries for me.

LGBTQ rights is a social issue.  Is support of LGBTQ rights a social conservative norm?  If so, how does social conservatism differ from social liberalism in your view?



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?

See, what you're saying all sounds very reasonable to me.  It all seems to be grounded in social liberalism as well.

Is your argument that teaching children sex ed and contraceptive use is a socially conservative thing to do?  If so, I have to ask again then . . . how does social conservatism differ from social liberalism in your view?



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.

Nor do I see the point in trying to criminalize it. But before you suggest that I'm breaking with social conservatism :) I should add that I'm somewhat ambivalent about it. I worry about the extremely high levels of THC in modern breeds of cannabis and what the long term effects are on the brain and, in the case of smoking, the lungs. So this is where I see the kernel of truth in conservatism on this issue, not their desire to criminalize it, but instead a push back on our headlong rush to promote a drug as harmless or even healthy (to be clear, there are probably some health benefits, but these things are never completely unambiguous). IMO, it would be prudent to legislate THC levels, maybe not back to 1980s levels, but maybe like 15% or even less.[/quote]

As a social conservative you believe that pot should be legal but under heavy government regulation?  Sounds reasonable.  But again . . . how does the social conservatism you follow differ from social liberalism?

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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 12, 2019, 06:48:23 PM


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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 13, 2019, 07:31:36 AM
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
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 13, 2019, 07:55:44 AM



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
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: LaineyAZ on June 13, 2019, 09:14:10 AM
What's wearisome to me with social conservatism is the casual dismissal of facts vs. their own "beliefs."

Years ago I had a conversation with a co-worker who was very upset about gays being allowed to be Scout masters.  He was sure they were all pedophiles, and my pointing out that gay does not equal pedophile did nothing to change his mind.  Statistics, facts, anecdotes to the contrary meant nothing, and he was an educated, well-traveled, urbane man.

So my question:  if we can't agree on the facts, how can we agree on policy going forward? 

Related to this, Van Jones said that one of the reasons for the Dem's loss in 2016 is that the liberals and moderates dry, almost robotic recitation of facts instead of acknowledging the feelings of those who felt they were not being heard.  I disagreed somewhat with this as the cause (I mean, am I required to acknowledge someone's sexism as a valid feeling?) but I do admit that my left-brained mind gets fed up with voters who can't be bothered to educate themselves and just follow their unexamined ideas.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 13, 2019, 09:39:44 AM
Years ago I had a conversation with a co-worker who was very upset about gays being allowed to be Scout masters.

The BSA finally lifted their ban on homosexual adults serving in leadership positions in 2015, but only in the face of an onslaught of lawsuits.  It wasn't a voluntary decision, and individual charter organizations that host troops can (and do) still prohibit homosexual adults from participating.  It's just not a national ban anymore.

Personally, I think the BSA's policies are still seriously fucked up in all kinds of ways.  For example, now that the program is co-ed (as of this February) units with female scouts are required to have at least one female adult at all functions but there is no such rule for units with male scouts.  Yet we've decided that it's totally fine for female adults to go into the woods with male scouts, but it's not okay for a male adults to go into the woods with female scouts.  I'm sensing a little women's privilege.

And don't even get me started on their position on agnostics and atheists, which is basically "fuck you".  BSA actively discriminates against people who refuse to accept magical fairy tales in favor the known scientific truth about the history of our planet.  They are a religious organization that receives direct federal funding, in violation of the establishment clause, but no one cares because atheists are one of those minorities it is still okay to hate.

And just in case anyone was unsure about how social conservativism plays a role in these backwards policy positions, I will point out that the Boy Scouts of America officially supported racially segregated units until 1974.  That's literally decades after Brown (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education).

I'm an Eagle Scout.  I'm an adult leader in the scouting program, at multiple levels, because I believe in the benefits of the program for individual youths.  But their history and their national policy positions are all kinds of fucked up, and I totally understand why so many people hate them.  Change has to come from within, though, and they're never going to come around if everyone who disagrees with them just walks away and lets them do their own bigoted thing.  People inside have to stand up and object.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: shenlong55 on June 13, 2019, 12:42:49 PM
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

That was an interesting podcast, but I don't think I can say it gave me any new information.  I understand that peoples worldviews are shaped by their genetics as well as their upbringing, but I aslo understand that even our most closely held ideas are ultimately change-able.  Hell, genetics is really just another word for "your ancestors upbringing".

I did notice that the person presenting the information seems to be biased.  Saying things like "liberals just don't get it" in reference to the Wayne LaPierre sound bite.  I mean, I can't speak for all liberals, but I get it.  I get that conservatives are more concerned about threats and I value their viewpoint for insights into how to protect against those threats.  But their proposed solutions often don't solve the problem that they are trying to solve and also come with significant negative side-effects that they seem to ignore.  They also seem to want to ignore the effects their words have on the world around them.  I get that Trump is afraid of ("bad") immigrants, but speaking about it in the way that he does perpetuates a negative stereotype that leads to negative life experiences for immigrants and citizens alike.  Ultimately, I'm all for addressing any real threats that conservatives are concerned about and maybe even some of their imagined threats so long as we can do so without harming others.  But the current incarnation of conservatism seems to be concerned mostly with imagined threats and only interested in solutions that are harmful to others.

Speaking of empathy, I also disagree with his assessment that a conservative having lower levels of activity in the S2 region of the brain when shown pictures of others in pain does not mean they are "hard-hearted".  I would venture a guess that that is actually the physical manifestation of what we would call empathy.  And I'll say again, I think a lack of empathy may be the one characteristic of human beings that I think is worthy of the labels "bad" or "wrong", especially when paired with actions that prevent others from expressing their empathy.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 13, 2019, 12:46:37 PM



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

In Skinner v. Oklahoma(1942) the Supreme Court struck  down Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act.

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty." Justice Douglas

Post-Skinner, a constellation of   Supreme Court precedents resolved issues of the unalienable, individual liberties of  family matters such as marriage, procreation, contraception, and abortion. These post-Skinner precedents are undergirded by the rationale that fundamental liberties of family formation are exercised in a zone of autonomous privacy beyond the reach of the state. Let these precedents that reinforce the "basic liberty" of Skinner assuage your concern that Buck has not been explicitly overruled.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: mm1970 on June 13, 2019, 02:40:57 PM


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.
not with a 10 foot pole
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FINate on June 13, 2019, 03:27:35 PM
I think the following gets to the meat of the matter, so I'll focus my response here...

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?

I'm certainly not an orthodox social conservative nor am I an orthodox social liberal, which is one of the reasons I'm unaffiliated. But I live in an area that is very left-of-Left in its politics and praxis. So in my way of life, personal values, dress and faith, I stand out like a sore thumb. That's why I've always assumed that I'm socially conservative.

But this thread and your thoughtful responses have me thinking more about this. More specifically, what exactly is a social conservative? This is what Wikipedia has (which we all know is the final arbiter of Truth, LOL):

Quote
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.

If this is a reasonable definition for social conservative then it raises way more questions for me than answers. By this definition it seems largely a matter of how values are derived.

This would mean the left-of-Left community where I live is technically socially conservative even though its foundational values are quite different than would typically be thought of as "conservative."  I know this sounds strange, but it makes a certain sense to me. Whereas one group traces much of it's identity to post-war white nationalism, the other traces their roots mostly to the culture-wars of the 60s. Where I live the counter-culture has been the dominant force for at least 40 years now...it is the status quo and has been for a long time. So oddly, I see a lot of conservatism around here. The sacred symbols, institutions, patriotism (https://www.nwgsd.org/shop), and values are different, but there's very much a sense of a need to uphold, or conserve, the culture. My guess is that this feeds into the NIMBYism here that has prioritized aesthetic concerns over the health and well being of people (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html), which is counter to "traditional progressive" values.

I'm wondering again how useful these categories are in an increasingly polarized society where what I suspect is really being debated, though not openly, is the definition of things like 'harm' and 'liberty' and such.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: PDXTabs on June 13, 2019, 05:45:36 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 13, 2019, 05:53:26 PM
At which point, who is the arbiter of what is and is not social conservatism?

Fox News, apparently.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: PDXTabs on June 13, 2019, 05:55:20 PM
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.

There is a preponderance of evidence that living in a household with wedded parents is good for kids. It does not follow that on balance safety-net policies that subsidize unwed motherhood cost more than they save. Specifically, the safety net programs do not exist for the parents. The safety net programs exists to keep their kids out of prison. For example WIC exists to make sure that their infant brain can get enough fat so that they aren't permanently mentally disabled. Other nutrition programs exists to make sure that malnourishment doesn't keep them for developing properly. This has obvious national security benefits on top of humanitarian ones.

To speak from my own personal experience, I received just enough social assistance in my unwed household to graduate from high school without ending up in prison. It costs ~$31k per year to house an inmate in the US. That's way more expensive than some school lunches, a little bit of pre-K education, and maybe some food stamps.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 14, 2019, 05:32:47 AM


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?


Wording accompanying the graph says  "but two-thirds would escape poverty, research shows, if they were married to the fathers of their children."

Another analysis of the unwed mother-poverty nexus  puts the percentage of unwed mothers who are poor at ~70%.

I'm mindful that bias against  "the welfare state" may influence how data is selected and analyzed which is why I am not cemented  to the position that  safety-net subsidization of unwed mothers costs more than it saves.

Among convicted males, being reared  in single-parent households is common. Incarceration, the final phase of the criminal justice system is costly, another fact that inclines me to believe the safety-net policy  at issue may cost more than it saves.

Also, the percentage of unwed mothers that graduate from college is abysmally low.

As to a solution, the governmental provision of long-acting reversible contraception such as an IUD is proven to be markedly effective at preventing unplanned pregnancies among women who fail to assiduously practice birth control.

However, this solution is problematic because it will be opposed by many "social conservatives," an opposition that exactly supports your contention that they are usually wrong on social issues.

I am educable; I am a  willing pupil here.

All elucidation is welcome including that  affixed to the end of a ten-foot pole.










Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 15, 2019, 12:46:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 15, 2019, 06:45:33 AM
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.

Basically they are (almost) free if you live in a country with universal healthcare.  Morning-after pill may be a separate cost.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 15, 2019, 06:58:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on June 15, 2019, 10:36:06 AM
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.

Not really, although certainly some truth for some people sometimes.

The underclass in our country  largely choose to have children they cannot afford by our middle class standards. They largely choose to not marry baby daddies. Having children while young is endemic in their culture. It is the norm.

The book Promises I Can Keep, an in depth study of young single moms, opened my eyes to the huge gap in values between the chronically poor, made so by producing children while young, and middle class persons.

The post above yours talks about financial stability thru marriage. These young women in the study reserved marriage in their mind for when they were old and no longer, shall we say, juicy. They did not want a man controlling their lives, which us how they viewed marriage.

It is a fascinating book. It is based on academic study but is written for a more popular market. If I have time later I’ll post more from it.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 15, 2019, 02:24:44 PM
Hmm, I don't know the figures for other countries but Stats Can is a mine of information for us:
Fertility rate by age group in 2016 (per thousand women):
15 to 19 years: 8.4
20 to 24 years: 37.6
25 to 29 years: 87.6
30 to 34 years: 107.6
35 to 39 years: 56.0
40 to 44 years: 11.5
45 to 49 years: 0.7

Our big shift is more women in their 40s and fewer women in their 20s are having babies.  I can see this in DD's friends, they are getting married in late 20s and having babies in their 30s.

I don't really pay attention to the data on unmarried mothers any more, since here (and noticeably in Quebec) many couples have children while living common-law.  In many provinces (certainly Ontario) the protection of children and property rights (i.e. splitting assets if the couple splits up) is pretty much the same for married and common-law.  So "unmarried mothers"  really needs to be looked at in more depth - are they truly unmarried in any sense of the word (i.e. father of the baby is not part of the household) or are they common-law (a family in every sense, except common-law instead of officially married).
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 15, 2019, 02:27:37 PM
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 agree.  In Canada health care is a provincial responsibility.  OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Plan) covers the cost of medical and surgical abortions.  A private clinic may have additional charges. 

Every baby should be a wanted baby.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: scottish on June 15, 2019, 02:35:51 PM
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?

http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/ (http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/)

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 15, 2019, 04:11:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 15, 2019, 04:28:18 PM
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.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: rocketpj on June 15, 2019, 09:34:38 PM


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.

Most of the evidence shows that parents want the best for their children.  Also, kids who grow up in households with adequate social supports - internal or external - are more likely to succeed in life and not repeat the pattern.  On the other  hand, demonizing and blaming people tends to marginalize them further, dramatically increasing the likelihood of further problems.

So if a single mom is working 18 hours/day to keep the lights on and the kids fed, she obviously isn't able to provide some of the  other parenting that children need.  If she is able to make ends meet on a regular full time job then she will be around for the kids.  Kids whose parents are around are more likely to succeed.

And absent fathers are another issue with a lot of complicating factors worth considering.  The USA has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, particularly for poor people and especially for poor black men.  A lot of that incarceration is because of excessively harsh punishments for otherwise minor crimes (many of which should not be crimes at all, i.e. marijuana possession).

I'd love to hear some empirical arguments against 'subsidizing' unwed mothers, rather than the classic 'welfare queen' straw people that usually come up.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 16, 2019, 09:48:03 AM
...
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: OtherJen on June 16, 2019, 05:55:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: jeninco on June 16, 2019, 09:08:51 PM
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.

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..."
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ncornilsen on June 17, 2019, 07:11:03 AM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 17, 2019, 07:41:21 AM
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?

I wouldn't classify him as a social conservative generally.  The new deal was a pretty liberal idea.  He was socially conservative on immigration though.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: scottish on June 17, 2019, 05:34:34 PM
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 can only imagine how they would feel if you had commented on  the prevalence of pederasty in the Catholic church...   
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: PDXTabs on June 17, 2019, 09:56:57 PM
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 wouldn't ague that the history of the US isn't a racist and ethnocentric one. However, to the best of my knowledge the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed in 1882. For 106 years literally anyone could come in. Again, to the best of my knowledge the quotas mentioned weren't implemented until 1921 (or 1965, depending on the origin). The modern immigration system as we know it wasn't implemented until 1965 which, coincidentally, is when we started to restrict the flow of labor on the Mexican border. 1965

EDITed to add: further reading (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407978)

EDIT2: my family came in in 1907, which is why I really care about this. We didn't have passports, we didn't have birth certificates, we didn't have backgrounds checks. We came through Ellis Island. That's just the way the world was almost everywhere in the western hemisphere. Before WWI you could walk across Europe without a passport and no one would stop you.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: gentmach on June 21, 2019, 11:28:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 21, 2019, 11:35:27 AM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: gentmach on June 21, 2019, 02:09:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 21, 2019, 02:28:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: gentmach on June 21, 2019, 02:50:32 PM
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.

The worry was that if enough women decide they don't want homosexual or transgender children then those populations would begin declining. If they are in decline then there would be less worry about making sure their rights are protected.

Personally Abortion is a tool to be used responsibly. This is just a scenario that may unfold as a consequence of allowing abortion.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 21, 2019, 07:20:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: gentmach on June 21, 2019, 10:15:06 PM
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?"
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Bloop Bloop on June 22, 2019, 03:24:07 AM
I think we should do everything we can to encourage abortion.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 22, 2019, 04:57:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 22, 2019, 05:01:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 22, 2019, 05:07:25 AM
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.

You were adopted!  Adopted by parents who certainly wanted you (as mentioned).  I was referring to the unwanted children that parents are forced (by various societal methods of control) into raising against their wishes/desires.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 22, 2019, 05:27:06 AM
I wonder where adoption gets placed on your scale of socially liberal - socially conservative.  The thing is that it's rarely chosen by mothers post Roe v Wade, mothers either keep their child or abort.  So adoption is a strange, likely suboptimal thing yet sometimes it works.  Having met my birth mother and her family, I would estimate that it tends to work better for the children than the families who place the child, although the children have emotional struggles of loss as well.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 22, 2019, 05:30:41 AM
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.

Then of course with an artificial womb, can't anyone buy a child?  As an adoptee, I have feelings about having been bought an paid for (my price was $400, my adoptive parents saved the receipt).  Then the commercialism begins...
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 22, 2019, 05:36:45 AM
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.


I would choose all the physical downsides of pregnancy when I could have a baby without them?   Seriously?  I still have side effects from DD and she is an adult now.

There is a lot of  discomfort (or maybe that is too mild a word) with IVF, so that might push women to body births.

BTW, this sort of looking at the future of reproductive technology is well covered in Lois McMaster Bujold's Vorkosigan series.  She presents different societies using reproductive technology and genetic design for different societal goals.  All hidden in a series of space adventure.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 22, 2019, 05:56:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 22, 2019, 06:38:09 AM
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.

As I said, LMB has looked at all of this, including introduction into a society where women are highly prized for reproduction (colonial planet, lots of terra forming,               prior low technology base due to isolation).                                       
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 22, 2019, 06:41:21 AM
You're telling me I should read a sci-fi soap novel for the answers to modern society?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Malkynn on June 22, 2019, 07:16:39 AM
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 haven't spent much time with pregnant women, have you...

"Appearance-motivated" as the main driver for not wanting to go through pregnancy?
Wow.

I mean, I can see incontinence-motivated, or vomit, heartburn, dangerous spikes in blood pressure, gestational diabetes, terrifying levels of water retention, back pain, hernias, separated abs, hair loss, bleeding gums, bad fucking moods, TEEEEAAAAARRRRRRRIIIIIING, oh, and legitimate risks to the safety of both mother and baby because shit can get real in there...fast...

Yeah, I can think of a few reasons that women might not choose "natural" that might register up there a little higher than appearance...

Let's not worry about all of those women who struggle with infertility or health issues that make pregnancy a terrible option even if we wanted it. It's not like there are many of us out there...
Oh wait...
Shit...
This is awkward...

I just...I just can't.
My severely scarred uterus and I are going to go have some morning wine now. It's not even 10 am here!!!
Gawd!
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 22, 2019, 07:35:31 AM
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.

Pregnancy is very inconvenient.  Newborns are extremely inconvenient also.  Most small children are, yet many people love having children.

How will artificial wombs support breastfeeding? I just wonder.  Talk about inconvenience!
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on June 22, 2019, 07:39:15 AM
You're telling me I should read a sci-fi soap novel for the answers to modern society?

No,  I am saying that if you want to know what some bright people have thought about the implications of all this on future societies, SF is well known for providing all sorts of futures.  And LMB is really good at the biology side of science and its effects on societies.  The Vorkosigan saga is space opera (and a side of transplanted Regency romance) on the surface, but there is lots of depth.  Hmm, I guess I am saying, go and read some good SF, it will definitely broaden your horizons.  After all, think of 1984 and Brave New World, they are classic SF.  But remember Sturgeon's Law.

Spoiler: show
She has uterine replicators used to return the fetal offspring of wartime rape to their fathers, she has uterine replicators for babies who can't survive in utero, she has uterine replicators for all sorts of designer babies and all sorts of social structures arising out of the separation of sex and babies.  She also looks at different societies' takes on reproduction and its control, from societies that need to severely control population all the way to societies who desperately need as many new people as possible.

The effects are cumulative as you go through the series.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Malkynn on June 22, 2019, 07:39:30 AM
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.

My mistake. I totally assumed you were a dude. I look like an ass now!

However, I maintain that many many of the women I know have quietly hated pregnancy and not felt comfortable being open about that. Combined with those of us with serious medical issues, I can think of many who would happily choose a safer option. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 22, 2019, 07:45:08 AM
Yep. There are a lot of complications with being female, it's not easy. I think being a man is generally easier, at least physically easier.  This artificial womb stuff is just wild though.

For me, I am concerned about commodifying human life.  And I think that is likely social conservative thinking.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 22, 2019, 08:15:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: gentmach on June 22, 2019, 09:51:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 22, 2019, 11:35:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 22, 2019, 12:03:26 PM
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.

We are pursuing more science in space now than ever before.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Radagast on June 22, 2019, 01:09:35 PM
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.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: PDXTabs on June 22, 2019, 03:30:12 PM
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.

There's some truth in that. But in the process we had a massive and coordinated push for science across society, including but not limited to microprocessor technology. Science was important, engineering was important, and not just for writing hookup apps.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 22, 2019, 04:59:14 PM
Science was important, engineering was important, and not just for writing hookup apps.

Right!  You forgot boner pills and hair transplant technology, to form the trifecta of stupid shit that's apparently more important than space travel or artificial wombs.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: gentmach on June 23, 2019, 05:31:32 AM
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.

People will debate it and find a path.

There isn't really a point to debating what a woman would do since there are 3 billion, each with their own unique set of circumstances and experiences which will dictate what they would decide.

Nuclear power suffers from bad PR. People won't change their opinion until there is a crisis which forces them to grudgingly accept that current methods don't work.

In order for society to function, everyone will have to compromise. Certain people hold ideals as absolutes which means they won't compromise which leads to inefficienies in society as people refuse to function.

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.



Pretty much what this guy said.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 23, 2019, 06:52:54 AM
I have been reading some Jordan Petersen (ahem) and he asserts that slavery is the way of the world, and is the default for human existence.  It takes a level of enlightenment to go against slavery as the norm.  I thought that was an interesting way of looking at it.  And it is probably true.  The strong can always abuse the weak, and it takes compassion to go against it.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 23, 2019, 10:22:44 AM


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."


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 23, 2019, 12:21:41 PM


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."

This seems like splitting hairs.  You're arguing that the right itself is absolute, but that the exercise of that right is subject to constraints.  In a practical sense, if you aren't allowed to exercise a right under some circumstances then most people do not consider it "absolute".

All of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are subject to restrictions.  You have freedom of speech, but not for libel or shouting fire in a crowded theater.  You have the freedom to own "arms", but not tanks, nukes, chemical or biological weapons.  Our enumerated rights are not practically absolute, despite your assertion that they are inherent.  They're ALL subject to limitations.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 23, 2019, 05:30:21 PM
Social conservatives typically value family.  Perhaps this is why the artificial uteruses seem so... wrong?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 23, 2019, 05:39:25 PM
Social conservatives typically value family.

A few thousand children currently being kept in concentration camps away from their parents without blankets might challenge that assumption. At least the ones old enough to understand the question.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 23, 2019, 06:24:12 PM
Social conservatives only seem to like a very rigid certain type of family.  Not immigrant families, single parent families, gay families, etc.  They have begun to tolerate mixed race families at least. . .
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: partgypsy on June 24, 2019, 02:02:35 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: partgypsy on June 24, 2019, 02:09:45 PM
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.

And this is my own personal baggage, but going through my divorce, ex and I got married making vows to each other. But during the breakup there was a lot of verbiage "re-framing" the marriage in different ways. He cheated on me: he said that he was glad I "gave" him a "free range marriage". His affair partner tried to push articles and books on me to normalize cheating. In turn the brief time I did internet dating both young and older men want the benefits of dating without any comcomitant commitment. In particular there was many individuals both looking for sex, and kinky sex without any reassurances of even serial monogamy.  I do appreciate that I can sexually be with my current partner without HAVING to be married to him. I'm glad people have access to birth control and there is not that stigma. But at least for me as a women (and my kids who now have a part-time Dad), the "sexual revolution" does not seem to be a huge improvement. I do think 2 parent homes are better than single parent homes for raising children, but it seems easy for men especially to opt out without much consequences or even social stigma.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ysette9 on June 24, 2019, 02:20:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: partgypsy on June 24, 2019, 02:31:36 PM
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.

For a long time (though I never contradicted anyone), I thought to myself that women complaining about their pregnancies were just doing it for colorful effect or for female solidarity, not because they actually felt that way. What is funy is that I'm not a baby person Before I had kids all babies looked like formless blobs to me. Even after having kids I enjoyed them more when they got past the infant small toddler stage (because yes THAT part was very hard work). 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 24, 2019, 03:11:57 PM
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.

While I don't believe that social liberals would disagree that consumption of many drugs are bad for your physical and mental well-being, I suppose that's a valid point.

Generally I believe that people should be free to make their own choices regarding the substances they want to put in their bodies.  But there are certain extremely addictive drugs that would seem to make sense to control.  Cocaine, Heroin, Methamphetamine . . . given their tendency to ruin people's lives through addiction, it's tricky to make a strong argument that they should be available to anyone jonesing for another hit.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ysette9 on June 24, 2019, 03:56:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Psychstache on June 24, 2019, 09:52:43 PM
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.

Portugal seems to have hit on something, but the plan doesn't allow for the shaming of others and self-righteousness of our current plan, so it seems unlikely to catch on.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it

Tangentially related TED Talk "Everything You Know About Addiction is Wrong":

https://www.ted.com/talks/johann_hari_everything_you_think_you_know_about_addiction_is_wrong?language=en
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 25, 2019, 06:08:55 AM
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. 

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: partgypsy on June 25, 2019, 08:33:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 25, 2019, 08:50:00 AM
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.

Social liberals believe that a persons sexual life should be his or her own private business.  They don't believe in attempting to force others to live differently.  That's a stark contrast with social conservatives, and seems to be exactly what you're advocating.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on June 25, 2019, 09:19:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 25, 2019, 09:28:34 AM
If banning of substances is a conservative position, how would we classify a ban on sodas? What about guns?

Are the proposals to outright ban all soda?  And outright ban all guns?  Or are they part of a more nuanced discussion of societal benefits and tradeoffs of partial restrictions?

Take drugs for example.  A hard left social liberal might want to see over the counter legalization of crack cocaine, including sale to minors.  That's far from the average position of the majority of social liberals though, who are in favor of more freedom for drugs with reasonable restrictions ( based on age, potency of chemical, likelihood of addiction, etc.)



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.

Fiscal conservatism is against regulation.  Social conservatism is for regulation.  It's important to not confuse the two, they are often presented like they're the same thing in North America.



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.

Agreed.  That's why I was explicit in use of the term 'social conservative' and have tried to be as clear as possible on this.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 25, 2019, 01:57:00 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/.../uk-abortion-mentally-disabled-woman.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/.../uk-abortion-mentally-disabled-woman.html)

The natural right of procreation is a dual right inclusive of the right to have children or not.

This  is an interesting and timely case on procreation in which an appeal to a British Court persuaded it to rule in favor of the former.

Speaking of the original ruling, an anti-abortion advocate said “There is no way such a judgment should ever have been made and had it gone ahead would have been a most grave violation of human rights."




Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 25, 2019, 02:18:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 25, 2019, 04:04:42 PM
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.


Wikipedia


"The United Nations views forced marriage as a form of human rights abuse, since it violates the principle of the freedom and autonomy of individuals. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that a person's right to choose a spouse and enter freely into marriage is central to his/her life and dignity, and his/her equality as a human being."


I agree with the United Nations' position against forced marriage.

I think you surely agree as well.

If so, what informs you as to the correctness of the United Nations' position?

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 25, 2019, 07:25:50 PM
My own personal mental construct of morality and rights.  (Which I think are very important!).  But I don't pretend that because I believe them they're somehow an example of 'natural law'.  Nature doesn't give a fuck.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 26, 2019, 06:11:46 AM
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/

Quote
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.

Rings quite true in this thread.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: DadJokes on June 26, 2019, 07:12:56 AM
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/

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Samuel on June 26, 2019, 10:00:22 AM
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/

Quote
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.

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.

Yeah, good article and interesting study. I see this all the time. So few people actually seek out and engage with the best presented arguments from the opposing side, preferring instead to attack lazy caricatures they've collectively built up within their bubble then pat each other on the back for their noble righteousness.

I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 26, 2019, 11:57:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 26, 2019, 01:21:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 26, 2019, 02:09:47 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 26, 2019, 03:04:04 PM
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?

What about my post is an insult? I think this thread has demonstrated that certain posters have a cartoon version of conservatives in their mind, as I've repeatedly stated, and that they will not engage in any serious dialogue or even remotely consider 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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 26, 2019, 06:31:20 PM
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.

So, just to confirm . . . you're unwilling to take the time to discuss your own comments about those with an opposing viewpoint?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 26, 2019, 06:43:49 PM
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.
BicycleB has spoken well, and said things more politely than I would say them.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 27, 2019, 08:30:27 AM
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.

***

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:

Quote
Here 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. Specifically here, and as Malkynn correctly noted, "I'm saying that you can't 100% separate the ideologies and the finances the way that's trying to be done in this thread. Student loans are a 100% fiscal policy? There was no social ideology behind it? I don't think so."

***

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:

Quote
Again, 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 that even tangentially relates to the economy.

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. Healtchare? Wickard (generally, but this is more complicated).

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:
Quote
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.

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.

Mortgage crisis -- a financial decision, yes, but the result of a social push to help everyone get a house.

Student loans -- a financial decision, yes, but the result of a social push to get more people into schools

Even immigration -- some view it as a financial decision (we can't pay for veterans healthcare for God's sake), so why are we going to take on even more of a burden? But immigration is obviously a social issue as well.

Even abortion -- probably the biggest social issue there is, yet a huge conservative objection is state funding of abortion.

***

That is just a response to my first post in this thread.  It is not worth my time to go through your constant mental gymnastics to make my point.

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.  I'll quote BicycleB again, because his post was well said, and I hope you read 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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 27, 2019, 09:26:04 AM
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.

Perhaps you could include the quote in context:
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 didn't dismiss your argument, but thought it was a good one worthy of further investigation on my part.  I asked for more information because historical eugenics and law in an American context is not a topic I'm well versed in.

In Britian (for example) a number of influential conservative figures supported eugenics.  Including folks like Winston Churchill, and Arthur Balfour.  In Canada there was conservative support for eugenics (Helen MacMurchy was a conservative in charge of determining which 'feeble minded 'people should be sterilized).  These are the people I first thought of when you were saying that eugenics was a liberal issue and this would seem to belie the argument that eugenics is a "progressive movement" that is also "uncontroverted fact".

There's also the fact that modern day support of eugenics seems to be largely a social conservative thing:  https://www.aaihs.org/eugenics-and-the-modern-conservative-movement/ (https://www.aaihs.org/eugenics-and-the-modern-conservative-movement/)

I agree with you though, in the US's history eugenics was generally supported by social liberals.  In fact, after researching into your comments further I wrote:

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.


Which part of listening to what you said, researching it, and then agreeing with you is an example of being unable "to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint"?





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?

My intent was not to fail to acknowledge that there was some progressive support for the socially conservative idea of prohibition . . . it was to point out that today (100 years later) there doesn't appear to be any.

As far as the accusations of 'failing to acknowledge' an argument . . . if you care to take a gander a few lines up you'll see an example of you failing to acknowledge that there was conservative support for eugenics (going so far as to say that eugenics is a "progressive movement" that is also "uncontroverted fact".  If you feel the need for explicit confirmation of every point of argument that you're correct on from someone you disagree with, I think it's unreasonable to hold yourself to a different standard.


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.

Which things do social liberals today want to completely prohibit that social conservatives want to allow?  Please note - I'm not failing to acknowledge your point, but asking for supporting evidence for your position.




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:

Quote
Here 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.

I did acknowledge that fiscal decisions are sometimes intertwined with social issues in this post:
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.


Saying that it's beside the point is because the goal of this thread was to discuss social conservatism.  While I don't always agree with fiscal conservative arguments, I often find them well reasoned and persuasive.  That's why I said so:

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.

I was (am?) looking for a better explanation of the logic behind social conservative policies.  Fiscal consequences of social policies are rarely a driving force in the discussion about social conservatism.  (As an example - abortion is more cost effective than having a birth, there is no fiscal cost to allow a transgender person use the bathroom he or she wants to, etc.)



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:

Quote
Again, 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.

Well, again, it looks like I'll need to better educate myself about this issue in order to respond.



In response to my pointing out that you are taking a logically impossible position in the way you are defining "social conservatives," you wrote:
Quote
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.

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.

Wrong.  See the post above.  There are some issues where social and fiscal conservatism are intertwined, and some where they are not intertwined at all (abortion, transgender wahroom choice, etc.)  The social conservative positions supported by fiscal conervatism often make sense to me . . . so I have much less issue with them.  The purely social conservative positions (including the ones opposed to fiscal conervatism) do not.  If this was not made clear earlier in the thread, I apologize.



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.

That certainly was not my intent.  I've tried to further explain what my intent was in the above posts.  If you believe that the term 'social conervative' is incorrect when referring to policies that are purely socially conservative, I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with a different term that you would prefer we use.



It's a complete waste of time.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I haven't intentionally tried to be dismissive of your comments or arguments, and have generally tried to listen to what you've been saying and respond politely.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 28, 2019, 10:50:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 28, 2019, 12:35:06 PM
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)

Quote
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.

Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 28, 2019, 12:46:44 PM
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)

Quote
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.

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?


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 28, 2019, 02:02:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 28, 2019, 02:24:29 PM
I was just posting on another thread today about the idea of not living together before marriage, because it saves a lot of heartache and makes breaking up less difficult if one realizes they need to get out.  I learned this from Dr. Laura's radio show, and I think it is generally good advice. It also ensures that two people can also stand on their own feet and are not needy for the other's support to survive and thrive.

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. 

She often said to women that you are not engaged to be married unless you have a ring and a date.  That was her standard of having a solid commitment, and it seemed to be out of the mindset of not letting women string themselves along with false hopes of a commitment that might not be there.

So, score a couple for the social conservatives on those two points. 

I believe there is research that shows that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce.  So if you care about marriage outcomes, you might want to follow some best practices. An article in the Atlantic suggests that people who move in together without clear relationship goals and just wander into marriage are more likely to divorce than people who move in together with a clear plan and commitment that they will marry. Makes sense.

When my now husband suggested to me when we were dating that he could buy a condo, I could move in and pay him rent, I said **** no.  And my family would have also talked me out of it if I was considering. So, I am thankful for that advice.  People need to be clear on their relationships and if they are looking for a roommate a tenant, a roommate w/benefits, or a future spouse. A potential partner may take the easy path rather than the committed one if given the opportunity.

And I will share this advice with my sons.  You do not move in with a romantic partner to save money.  You move in when you are getting married and building a life with someone.  If your spouse or romantic partner ever hits you or your children, the relationship is instantly over.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 28, 2019, 02:40:07 PM
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?

Children are not mentally developed to the same degree as adults.  This is measurable in a variety of ways.  The question becomes whether or not a child is mentally fit to legally consent to have sexual relationships with a pedophile.  Morally, it is difficult to support a 'yes' to this question.  This is pretty starkly different than the consensual relationship between two men though.


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?

Morally I don't really see there being a problem with polygamy it if all parties consent.  (Personally, I think it's a terrible idea for a variety of reasons.)  The tricky part of course, will be in the splitting up of such a marriage and dividing wealth in case of death/divorce/etc.  I would expect that to be significantly less straight forward than in a traditional marriage (which can already be complicated).  Is there a reason that the federal government should stop them?


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.

Generally I agree with you.

But there are notable failures of the democratic process.  Like when the democratic process allowed slavery.  Or when the democratic process allowed for the round up of all Japanese Americans into concentration camps and the confiscation of their property during the second world war.  Or how women are still not guaranteed the same rights as men under the constitution today.

What is your proposed solution for democratic process failures?


Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

Quote
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.

Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.

I have some trouble with this argument because of it's notable failures in the past.

Until the late 60s and early 70s, a large number of states defined a white person marrying a black person as miscegenation and had laws preventing this.  Every word in that statement would apply to these laws as well.  States had historically defined marriage to be between a white man and woman.  Was expansion of the definition of marriage wrong in this case?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 28, 2019, 03:09:04 PM


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/
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 28, 2019, 04:03:34 PM


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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Telecaster on June 28, 2019, 04:08:03 PM
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?

You are making it too hard.  Marriage is a civil law contract, that give the married couple certain rights and obligations under the law.  When you go to the county and fill out the marriage license form, they don't ask you if you are in love.  They ask you if you are over 18 (at least in my state).  You have to show ID, and you have to pay a fee.  They don't ask you if you intend to have kids, if you have kids, or even if you like kids.  They don't ask if you value the institution of marriage.  Pay the fee and show ID and you are good to go.

Since love and the family unit aren't requirements for straight people getting a marriage licence, why should love and the family unit exclude gay people from getting a marriage license?  If being gay means you can't enter into civil contracts then gay people can't get jobs, rent apartments, etc. 

The only argument against is the one you positied, the slippery slope.  That's not persuasive. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 28, 2019, 04:29:21 PM


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?

I think her philosophy on this was that gay couples who wanted to adopt was OK, but male-female marriages were preferable for kids. So, all other things being equal, she would prefer a male-female couple for adoption before a same-sex couple. And that likely makes sense for the kids, too.

Interesting article.  Note that birth mothers who choose to place their child for adoption often choose hetero couples over homosexual couples. And international adoption is often not friendly to homosexual couples either.
We can chalk this up to -- life's not fair.
https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2013/fall/gay-couple-adoption/
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 28, 2019, 04:51:35 PM
Homophobia and bigotry both certainly result in unfair situations.  I don't believe that we should accept them as part of life though.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 28, 2019, 05:19:26 PM
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.  Sometimes women leave their duly married husband because he is abusive and predatory, and those women should not be obligated to stay single forever, despite what the social conservatives believe.

And speaking as a step dad to kids who were abused by their new step mom, your particular brand of social conservativism is OFFENSIVELY sexist.  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 called out for it by people of conscience.

Next up, I look forward to your opinions on how wives should always do the dishes before meekly consenting to silent missionary. 


MOD NOTE: You can strongly disagree without being rude and undermining yourself in the process. Even if extremely offended. Please do so.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 28, 2019, 07:34:48 PM
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?

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 28, 2019, 07:39:37 PM
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.

Homosexual couples are more likely to be able to adopt the "unwanted" older children in foster care who need parents, but that is not as picture perfect as adopting a newborn, and it's a much more challenging type of parenthood because many kids have had difficult situations.

I guess when *you* have a child to place for adoption, you can be as open-minded as you want to be about it.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 28, 2019, 07:53:33 PM
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)

Quote
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.

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.”
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on June 28, 2019, 08:15:43 PM
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)

Quote
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.

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.”

How was I yelling?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: marty998 on June 28, 2019, 08:24:05 PM
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?

@KBecks, you should probably note the following paragraph in that article:

Quote
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.

And then it goes on to say for a different study:

Quote
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).

Now it doesn't tell us here what proportion of the original sample were bio parent, step parent or adoptive, so we can't tell whether any of categories of parent is out of proportion. Perhaps it is in the referenced papers, but I'm not going to follow it through (I shouldn't have to).

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I'm not going to tell you your feelings and experiences are wrong, they may indeed be well founded. But at the risk of jumping on silly culture bandwagons I'll just drop a #notallmen here and leave it at that.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 28, 2019, 09:10:25 PM
Of course not all men!  Duh.  Married two-parent bio families have the lowest odds for child abuse.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on June 28, 2019, 09:15:55 PM
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 quoted study says “...Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner were at least 8 [times] more likely to be maltreated in one way or another. They were 10 times more likely to experience abuse and 8 times more likely to experience neglect...”

Ok, the study does not claim men are doing the  abusing. I think that is an inference many people have made over the years when hearing about this study.  I made it, too. Because kids with surrogate dads in their home are 8 to 10 times likely to come into abuse or neglect, Seems like something is up besides mommy just being mad at her boyfriend and taking it out on the kids.

 8 to 10 times —seems huge to me.

I guess I should  fuck right off, tho, for even thinking that somehow men in the home of non bio kids are to blame for any of it. I wonder if the authors of the study should not be speaking in public places, too.


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 28, 2019, 11:17:39 PM
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 bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:


1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Attack an argument, not a person. (arguably. @sol does sort of address the argument elsewhere in his post)
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.
6. Use good taste.  (obviously arguable, but...)

Try to stay towards the top of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement:

(appears to be closer to layer 6, ad hominem attacks, near the bottom, than the other hierarchy layers)

I admit, reading the rest of the post, I sympathize with Sol's feelings. The data-based counterargument is a good example of why it's better to discuss than attack, though. The attack...probably not okay.

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. I am glad our forum mostly tries to avoid them.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: innkeeper77 on June 28, 2019, 11:24:18 PM
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.

As a current hardcore liberal who used to be religious and on the right, but is finding it harder and harder to understand my former demographic, you might be right.

Note, I have honestly seen much less hate on the liberal side, even though an inability to comprehend the conservatives viewpoints does exist. Admittedly, this is my HIGHLY biased viewpoint.

(I'll be coming back to this thread later, I need rest to be able to read this properly)
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 29, 2019, 12:57:20 AM
I figured that the general and baiting tone of the original post was bound to spiral into vitriolic arguments about some particular issue, I was just curious which.

BicycleB has still had the best post in this thread, noting that there was some good conservative policies here and there. This is one reason I like The Art of Manliness site and books: what they're trying to do is to take some of the good aspects of past ideas of masculinity while setting aside the bad aspects.

Now, obviously we can argue which are the good and which are the bad, but I don't think anyone can reasonably say there is nothing good about past ideas of masculinity, or religion, or whatever. That would be denying reality, which is ideological.

To illustrate this, here's a little test (https://www.vox.com/2015/8/13/9148123/quiz-which-programs-work) - they show you some government policy, and then you answer whether you think it would have a positive, negative or neutral effect. If you answer in a "progressive" voice each question, you'll be wrong; if you answer each in a "conservative" voice, you'll be wrong. The truth is more complex than ideology. But the characteristic of ideology is that it ignores results. Makes for snappier soundbites, though.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 29, 2019, 01:12:15 AM
The bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:

Yes, it totally does.  And I knew that when I posted it.

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 29, 2019, 01:31:16 AM

Quote from: Kbecks
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.

As just one example, the assertion that women in 1950 stayed in abusive marriages: no doubt many did. But in Australia in the 1950s the crude divorce rate was 1 in 1,000, more or less; now it's 2 or so. There was a big jump in the late 1970s when no-fault divorce was introduced. Still, plenty of people were getting divorced in the 1950s. So there were a significant number of women who were just not putting up with that shit any more. I realise that this fits neither the progressive nor the conservative narratives; the progressive would like to believe that women in 1950 were imprisoned in chains, and the conservative would like to believe they were all happy and free and fulfilled.

The truth, of course, is something in between. While many stayed in unhappy or abusive marriages in 1950, it is just as true that many people leave relationships which are non-abusive but having difficulties, and which with some work could be made good. It is not good to stay in something shitty, but it is also not good to quit easily something which could be good.

While the "golden" age was never that golden, it is just as foolish to imagine that there was nothing good about it. The idea that we are on a linear progression in history, that everything new is simply by virtue of its newness good, and everything old awful simply by virtue of its being old, these things are demonstrably not correct.

I understand the sensitivity - taking my daughter to the toilet next to the playground I have been aggressively queried by a passing mother. "What are you doing with that girl? Why are you taking here in there?!" So I get it, Sol. But life and history are more complicated than this. I do not agree with everything she said, but I do not think Kbecks was calling you a child abuser, Sol.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 29, 2019, 02:46:15 AM
The bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:

Yes, it totally does.  And I knew that when I posted it.

Quote
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.

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.

You may be triggered, but hopefully you won't stay that way.

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 continue to disagree on the basis that telling people to STFU closes off healthy discussion. In other words, I continue to support the forum rules, which I think are correct. There are plenty of counter arguments to her statement that you could make instead. Make them, and then you at least remain in contention for that high ground you speak of.

By the way, you don't have to think of the rules as some unfair construct preventing you from speaking the justified truth. You could think of them as an intellectual failsafe that prompts you to look for intelligent responses at moments when emotion or misunderstanding temporarily sidetracked you. (That's why I'm not reporting you. I think you can calm down instead. Not from a submit-and-conform basis, but an understand-and-revise basis. So, hopefully temporary.)

For example, you could say "Most new boyfriends, even step-dads, are not abusive and predatory." That doesn't contradict her statement directly, but if you thought she meant most step-dads were predatory, it would argue against the meaning that you perceived. If you backed that statement up with evidence, your argument would be powerful. I happen to think you'd be correct.

Personally, I know how it feels to think someone is or at least might be thinking you're bad when you're not. I'm not a stepdad, but I quietly and cautiously have participated in raising my former fiancee's teenage daughter. Who knows when I could be mistakenly accused of something bad? Separately, I know actual cases where people were falsely accused, authorities brought in, dire consequences threatened with the suddenness of a thunderbolt and huge possible harm at stake. Plus being accused probably feels reaaaally bad. So, I sympathize, even if I can't know how you feel personally.

Yet I don't think Kbecks insulted you. You may have felt insulted, I don't dispute your feelings, but from the outside, I don't think she did. A woman getting remarried or bringing a new boyfriend into her home should indeed consider the possibility that New Boyfriend could turn out to be a predator. Predators exist, and you don't always recognize them as being predators until it's too late. She should consider it carefully. Anyone who thinks she shouldn't be careful about is in my opinion being extremely unreasonable.

Did Kbecks say anywhere that men don't need to worry about women being abusive to stepchildren? Or did you impute that?

For what it's worth, the Jenny Rae Armstrong article that Kbecks linked is incredibly easy to argue against. It discusses people who were convicted of abuse; enumerates various percentages about the demography of the abusers (male, female, etc) and the types of abuse; cautions about reading the statistics incorrectly; and yet is titled with a conclusion that is not proven at all by any of the data. You could find data proving or suggesting that most step-dads are safe and non-predatory, thus trumping the article. You can make arguments like @marty998 did in his excellent reply (8/28/19, 8:24:05 pm).

There's no need to "shut people up" when you could just discuss using the upper levels of that discussion pyramid in the forum rules.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 29, 2019, 05:30:37 AM
Getting back to Dr. Laura, who espouses socially conservative, traditional views (or at least she did in the late 90's when I was listening to her), the main message to women seems to be -- a) you need to be able to be an independent woman who does not NEED a man to survive, and b) women, you are the gatekeeper to yourself and any kids you may have -- you must be careful to select a man with the values and behaviors that you want for your family.

Looking back now this strikes me as Dave Ramsey-ish, as her rules seemed to be to help the people who were really struggling on the fringes of bad relationships and very difficult situations, and setting people up for basic success with their lives and families.

It was a long time ago when I listened, but she would absolutely point out the positive characteristics of good men, too.

I also remember clearly her saying that her #1 goal for raising children is for them to be GOOD people, who are kind to others, unselfish and non-criminal.  Everything else comes in second place.

Side note: 1) I am not the author of that blog I shared, and 2) I posted it quickly, so apologies if it was triggering for you Sol. Absolutely none of it is directed towards you or anybody here personally.

Note: There was definitely some bunk in the late 90's, just like there is likely some bunk out there today, too.  I recall reading Joshua Kennon's blog and how very deeply hurt he felt in the 90's when there was speculation (by an evangelist? I don't remember exacly who) about gay men and their (poor) relationships with their fathers being in play for homosexuality.  Kennon had a great relationship with his dad.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 29, 2019, 01:20:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: partgypsy on June 29, 2019, 02:01:09 PM
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.

Most studies show that kids do best in two parent households. Doesn't mean all two parent households are good, or that single moms can't raise well-adjusted children, it is a statistic of what is more or less likely. 


I do think that one way that "liberals" versus "conservatives" try to uphold various values are different. For example if you think there should be less abortions, liberals will work to create situations that reduce the need for abortion such as sex education and birth control access. And if abortions are needed, to provide them in a safe, nonpunitive way. Conservatives don't seem to work to encourage the situations that they say they want, and they are punitive in punishing versus trying to reduce the occurrence. In the same way liberals may approach drug addiction as a public health problem and try to find ways to treat the addiction, while conservatives see it as a moral issue and use laws to punish rule breakers. Gross generalizations I know.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 29, 2019, 02:39:56 PM
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.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on June 29, 2019, 03:23:07 PM
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.

There is a whole lot of emo blather here. Your family anecdotes are data points, not research.

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?

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on June 29, 2019, 04:26:07 PM
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?

That is not the question under discussion, whether your assertion is true or not and regardless of what that might mean.  The question is why so many people think it's okay to disparage an entire class of people, and then use that discriminatory opinion to set social policy.

Do you often drop "Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, that's why we need the wall" into polite conversation?  Does it matter that a majority of the drugs being illegally smuggled into the country come through Mexican cartels?  Does that make it okay to disparage Mexicans, or to support "socially conservative" policies that discriminate against all Mexicans, including the ones fighting the cartels?  Because that's kind of racist. 

I don't see this discussion as any different.  You think it's okay to express sexist opinions on the internet, and I don't.  In this particular case, I'm a member of the subgroup being disparaged in an off-handed and almost dismissive fashion, and so I spoke up.    I'm patiently awaiting a determination about how long I will be banned for doing so.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 29, 2019, 04:48:54 PM
I don't think I disparaged an entire class of people.  Perhaps I didn't phrase it in the best possible way but it seems that other forum members understood the main idea.

You extrapolated one comment to mean that I am pushing missionary position sex (completely off-topic) and a 1950's female-submissive lifestyle (I'm not). And it seems like if you ran the universe, you're ready to send me and my whole family to a re-education camp because you're feeling triggered.  Who cares about the facts of what I was trying to say, your feelings come above all.

Last but not least, you seem to feel that the rules should not apply to YOU. How very special.

Perhaps I can phrase these things better.  Some predators target and prey on single women with children. Some people who are dating people with children who are not theirs don't give a flying fig about the kids. And the main idea is that kids who are in families with non-bio parents are at greater risk for abuse.  Obviously, not everyone is a child abuser. I hope that makes it clearer, if you are willing to listen.  Also, I am sorry for hurting your feelings. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 29, 2019, 06:12:28 PM
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?

No.


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.

In your point of view, should a white supremacist mother be given free reign to refuse any parents who is Jewish, black, Hispanic, Asian, middle-eastern, and Indian because of race?


Liberal women seem more likely to abort their unwanted fetuses.

Can you provide the study or source material that you're using which supports your theory here?  My understanding is that the numbers of abortions are similar between conservative and liberal women.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 29, 2019, 06:17:36 PM
No evidence on that, just a supposition. I could be wrong. 

RE: a birth mother's choice.  I think it is always her choice. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 29, 2019, 06:34:42 PM
RE: a birth mother's choice.  I think it is always her choice.

I agree with you on that.  But it makes me feel kinda bad when I think about bigotry and hatred playing a role in that decision.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 29, 2019, 06:45:34 PM
I tend to think that most people are not hateful bigots.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 29, 2019, 06:49:26 PM
I tend to think that most people are not hateful bigots.

You just said that conservative mothers are likely to be.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on June 29, 2019, 07:22:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: ReadySetMillionaire on June 29, 2019, 08:02:24 PM
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.

Demonize, beat up a straw man, rinse, repeat.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on June 29, 2019, 08:20:32 PM
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.

No, of course not.

You said that conservative women would not be likely to choose a homosexual couple to adopt a child.  If the woman is doing this solely due to their sexual orientation (the only criteria you specified), then the woman is a bigot by definition.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot)
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on June 29, 2019, 09:25:40 PM
This was interesting, Chesterton on the caveman and his (or her, for that matter) art.

Our myth of progress holds that everything is an improvement on before, so that if you go back far enough then all life was nothing but shivering poverty, brutal violent oppression and misery, and that only the foolish and malicious would wish things to be as they were. But as eloquently described by Chesterton, even the Stone Age had its beauty and joys.

Quote
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.

https://theblogthatwasthursday.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/chesterton-on-cave-paintings/ (https://theblogthatwasthursday.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/chesterton-on-cave-paintings/)


I do not wish to go back to the Stone Age, but it is wrong to suppose that each age before us has nothing of value, and that the world was nothing but victims and perpetrators.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: scottish on June 30, 2019, 09:26:02 AM
One of the bigger problems we're seeing right now - in the US and to a lesser extent in Canada - is applying labels to groups
of people and then encouraging each group to fight against the other.   The fight is usually based on some extreme position
advocated by only a small number of people in the group.

So we see self identified conservatives calling liberals names, and self identified liberals disparaging the intelligence of conservatives.

The polarization seems to be created by different organizations usually as a means of increasing their influence.   The
popular media is a key example.   Fox news will promote ridiculous stories about liberal agendas.   The Washington post will
publish equally ridiculous articles about the Trump family.    The Russian government is another key example...

Social media provides immense leverage to increase polarization.  Younger generations will seize upon some controversial
keynote that resonates with their experiences and promote this through social media.   
Older generations with their longer term experiences are viewed as irrelevant and ignored as old timers have a much smaller presence on social media.

But the reality is liberals and conservatives share many common values.   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.   I may not be the number one
fan of the US's military adventures, but I like the US government a lot more than the Chinese or Russian government.

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 as

Quote
the 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 is

Quote
a 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?


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on June 30, 2019, 07:42:56 PM


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.


What matters most for me  is the freedom to choose where we situate ourselves on  the political spectrum.

I don't devalue anyone because of their choice of political orientation.

On the contrary, I'm happy that they have a choice and have chosen to make use of it.

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.


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on June 30, 2019, 08:08:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on June 30, 2019, 09:38:21 PM

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.

Wow, @John Galt incarnate! I really like that.

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.

I agree. I suspect that if we could mentally liberate ourselves from partisanship, both American liberals and conservatives would agree with this.


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 as

Quote
the 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 is

Quote
a 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?

That is a really interesting question.

I actually think quite a few elected representatives are sincerely attempting to represent one or another. What gets tricky is that sometimes, many get mired in partisan strategems. It's perfectly possible that the particpants' view is that the strategems are necessary to advance the cause of (fill in conservative/liberal ism here).

The strategems often seem inconsistent with the stated philosophy, so there's a question about what "effective" is. I think quite a few are trying from their viewpoint, but that partisan inconsistencies greatly limit the number of politicians who can clearly be seen from both sides of the aisle as consistent effective exponents of their philosophy.

PS. Sorry if I took your rhetorical question in an unintended direction.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on July 01, 2019, 07:06:26 AM
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 are perfectly capable of attacking that argument through reasoned discussion, as the forum rules suggest. There's no need to break forum rules and lower the quality of discussion by attacking the person, telling them to STFU.

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.

She didn't say women shouldn't be ALLOWED to divorce. So your analogy to gay people "shouldn't be allowed to marry" is logically irrelevant. As someone (Marty998?) said, you're setting up a strawman. Then you're associating it with a person (Kbecks) who didn't say either of the inflammatory statements you compared to her comment.

A bigot behaves unfairly and negatively towards someone because of preconceptions instead of what the other person actually does. You're behaving unfairly and negatively towards her, but not because of what she said, only because of what you thought she said. The mistake is by you.

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."

@sol, they're very different.

The first one is an assertion about what can be. Do you notice the words "can be" in the middle of it? It's a statement that individual members of a group may have a certain negative characteristic, but it doesn't claim that all members of the discussed class have that negative characteristic. The second one is categorical statement that all members of a group have a negative characteristic.

Also, she said the first one. She didn't say the second one. So attacking her as if she did was wrong.


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 01, 2019, 07:58:22 AM
@BicycleB  Thank you.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 01, 2019, 08:42:20 AM
@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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: DadJokes on July 01, 2019, 08:49:35 AM
@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 think y'all should continue the conversations. I have been very entertained by this thread.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 01, 2019, 09:16:08 AM
@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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: partgypsy on July 01, 2019, 11:29:19 AM
@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.
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/
Apparently sexual dysfunction is increasing in a whole group of younger men, that had not been seen in previous generations, and the hypothesis is the use of porn. Basically, because of over use of porn, can't keep it up, have sex with live partner. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039517/

I think like many things it's best in moderation but some cannot do moderation.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 01, 2019, 06:29:51 PM
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.

Huh.  I thought I was mostly agreeing with you in my last post.  Again, I care mostly about what you do with the position . . . because that's what impacts the world.  What you hold as your personal belief, I don't really care about.  We do seem to be agreed that the social conservative implementation of policy has more often than not been wrong (regardless of whether or not it was coming from a good place).


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.

When you say 'progressive' do you mean 'liberal'?  I'm not sure that equating the two terms is correct.  Why would any socially liberal person promote any kind of marriage?  I want to let people who want to be married get married.  Once they're free to do so, the decision is best made by the two people interested in getting married.  Why would I stick myself into their business?


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.

What would you consider me?  Socially liberal, or conservative?  I'm not neutral about marriage, generally I think it's a great idea provided the two people have laid the groundwork necessary.  I've argued for marriage (as in the post you quoted above)  I've argued against mockery of marriage in the past.  There appears to be something wrong with your generalizations of 'progressives' (which, again, I'm assuming you're using in place of liberal).


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 with you (and social conservatives) on porn in general.  As you've outlined, it's not good for the straight male brain in a variety of ways.  (Although as a sidebar, I'd make an argument that porn exists to a great extent because of the long standing - and winning - social conservative view that limited the legalization of prostitution.  But that's a whole other can of worms to open up, and I'm not sure there's enough ink in my keyboard to cover it.)

Now, does that mean that a blanket ban on porn is the correct way forward?  For a lot of reasons, I don't think so.


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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 01, 2019, 07:26:29 PM
Quote
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.

It's almost as if we were all human beings, or something.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Radagast on July 01, 2019, 08:20:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 01, 2019, 08:24:47 PM
It's almost as if we were all human beings, or something.

Speak for yourself, hew-mann.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 02, 2019, 05:59:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 02, 2019, 07:23:54 AM
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?

That is correct.


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.

Personally, I generally find street evangelism a bit distasteful as it's often rather aggressive and in your face (which makes sense, if people were interested in the message being told they already would have learned about it - we live in the information age).  That said, I believe that your friend should certainly have the right to try to get the message out in this way - provided it's being done as a conversation rather than an attack.

Example of OK sharing of ideas:
"Hi, I'd like to talk to you about God and homosexuality.  Do you have a few minutes?"

Not OK sharing of ideas:
"Got hates fags, who will burn in eternal damnation for their filthy sins . . . those pedophile sodomites!"

I'm sure that your friend is a reasonable person, and therefore uses the former rather than latter approach.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: LaineyAZ on July 02, 2019, 07:47:11 AM
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.

Sidewalk counseling, is that what they're calling it these days?   Sounds so … benign. 
But coupled with the electing of legislators who pass laws regarding forced ultrasounds, forced waiting times, forced multiple appointments, needless and expensive medical staffing levels and hospital associations, along with refusing to provide sex education in schools, etc. etc. is way beyond "sharing of ideas." 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 02, 2019, 10:28:05 AM

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.

That's fine. I see what you're saying. I do think that both your title and the opening statement do not coincide with your viewpoint above:

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?

They seem to imply more than just conservatives implementing laws causing problems. It seems to imply that social conservatives are on the wrong side of history. I would not say you are a social conservative to answer that one question, but I would say that the fact that you for example, as a social liberal, wouldn't promote expanding drug use as a good idea or promote pornography as liberating to women show that the social conservatives are not always on the wrong side of history. Social conservatives tend to make the most positive impact when the ideas are promoted outside of legal channels, but that's not exclusive to them. When either side gets into politics, things tend to get messy and the impact is not as easily determined.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sol on July 02, 2019, 09:37:40 PM
Also, I am sorry for hurting your feelings.

Don't try to make this about me.  When a racist person says something extraordinarily racist, you don't want them to say "I'm sorry I hurt your feelings" and you don't want them to say "I'm sorry you're such a fragile snowflake that you can't take a joke."  You want them to say "I'm sorry for being racist.  That was wrong of me, I will try to be less racist in the future."

You're dealing in sexism.  It's offensive.  Your apology was insincere and inadequate for the scope of your mistake, which you still fail to recognize or admit.

I'm done.  I'm sure the forum will be fine without me. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on July 02, 2019, 10:21:07 PM
^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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 03, 2019, 11:07:42 AM
Sol, what you wanted to happen hasn't happened. The forum has not unanimously agreed
with you and no one has come to cut out my tongue.

You perceived a statement as sexist toward men. It seems that you felt I was attacking your family and your fatherhood.  I did not mean it that way in the least.  Because I am a real conservative, you are making many assumptions. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: DadJokes on July 03, 2019, 11:15:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: partgypsy on July 03, 2019, 11:31:48 AM
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.

yes ditto, women who are not the biological mother also do not have the same compelling biological urge to care for and use resources on nonbio kids. We are basically overcoming pretty deep wired underpinnings to be good step parents and good adoptive parents. It's not just horror stories, but also benign neglect and preference. A friend of mine's mother died when he was young, and the father remarried and had more kids. The new mother would ensure that her kids were fed but often there was no food left over for the oldest kids. He remembers going to bed hungry. But it motivated him to work from a very early age so he would have money to buy food. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: shenlong55 on July 03, 2019, 11:40:45 AM
^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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: madgeylou on July 03, 2019, 01:56:12 PM
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/

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 03, 2019, 02:22:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 03, 2019, 02:33:24 PM
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.

Yes, the wicked stepmother is archetypal and based in truth.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 03, 2019, 03:26:29 PM
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?

You will be sent to a reeducation camp, but it's fine because you were wrong!   <--re education camps were a progressive idea.

Along with bloodletting, residential schools (in canada, teaching people to lose their native culture), electro shock therapy, experimental lobotomies, etc.

I believe those were all progressive ideas at the time.

The thing is, we discard useless progressive ideas quickly, and we celebrate their successes equally quickly.

Conservative ideas that work are generally ignored, and conservative ideas that don't work are slow to be discarded.  So I think there's a sampling or survivor bias of some kind involved here.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 03, 2019, 05:24:18 PM
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.

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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 03, 2019, 06:05:54 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 03, 2019, 06:17:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: mm1970 on July 03, 2019, 06:35:18 PM
Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 03, 2019, 06:48:07 PM
Quote
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.

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 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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 03, 2019, 10:48:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 03, 2019, 10:52:34 PM
This is actually an interesting cultural thing, too. In any communication, ideally the speaker tries to be clear, and the listener tries to understand. But do we put the bulk of the responsibility on the speaker or the listener? Western culture puts the bulk on the speaker, eastern culture on the listener.

This is something a Westerner learns when speaking to Japanese or Chinese or Indian and they say, "yes, yes." In the Western world, "yes" means "yes, I understand." In the east, it means, "yes, I am listening." So you could be explaining something and then later be confused when it turns out they didn't understand a single fucking thing you said. They didn't ask for clarification because if they don't understand they assume it's their fault.

On the flipside, the easterner may be offended at how blunt and direct the Westerner is.

I wouldn't know about this, except that my wife, while Australian of European heritage, has worked as a Japanese-English interpreter/translator.

Obviously, these are generalisations and individuals vary, especially in today's globalised culture where aspects of one culture mix into another. But there it is, still, and these cultural differences illustrate personal ones.

In person, one part of speech is tone. This is absent in text, which is why in this text-heavy world we've introduced emojis, so that we know the difference between "you bastard" spoken affectionately and "you bastard" spoken in contempt. Absent tone, people tend to read their own mood and past experiences into your text. Which is why relatively neutral comments can be taken as extreme praise or condemnation, why measured criticism can be taken as extreme bigotry, and so on.

If the last 10 people I spoke to in person who said "you bastard" meant it in a contemptuous way, then the 11th time it happens and it's just in text, I'm going to have those 10 other people in my head, and read it that way, and maybe I'll get offended and storm off.

With that in mind, perhaps we Westerners writing here need to think more eastern in our reading. After all,  while I can adjust what I say so that a particular individual can understand it as I intend it, our writing on a forum can be read by hundreds of people, there's simply no way I can adjust it to fit them all, especially as I don't know them all. Perhaps the onus does need to be on the listener.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 03, 2019, 11:35:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 04, 2019, 12:19:28 AM
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?

There is no point. You both are quite entrenched in your positions and convinced you are in the right (particularly the moral right). That's what I suggested dropping it, and moving on.

Quote
I think that Sol naming me in his sig line counts as being a jerk, btw.

I agree. It's rude and unbecoming. Of course, he would probably say the same thing about your original comment, based on how he interpreted it.

Short of you two being able to see it from the other person's viewpoint (and I think Sol's response to that would be fairly obvious, about why you wouldn't try to see a viewpoint of a racist, so why would you for someone he deems sexist, etc. because, again, entrenched in one's opinion), it seems the best thing to do is drop it (which, yes, would include removing petty signatures). No?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 04, 2019, 06:07:28 AM
OK, thanks.

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?

I understand he's well known, popular, and has been here for years, etc. 

Sol and I have co-existed here for 5 years with no big problems that I can remember except this one, so it is no big deal to me.

I am unhappy about the signature, though.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 04, 2019, 07:08:12 AM
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?

Yes.

I'd be happy to discuss further questions about moderation over PM if you'd like, but don't feel like it should/needs to be addressed publicly beyond the above. :)

Cheers!
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 04, 2019, 07:25:04 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: shenlong55 on July 04, 2019, 10:40:54 AM
Quote
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.

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 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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 04, 2019, 04:31:23 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.


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.

Any Canadian of a certain age knows conservatives can be progressive, after all they named a political party the Progressive Conservatives and had Red Tory MPs. I wish Flora MacDonald was still around.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 04, 2019, 05:09:02 PM
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
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 04, 2019, 06:08:15 PM
Quote
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.

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 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.

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.

As long as you live in a generally stable society, I feel like it's worthwhile to assume good intent.  And I agree with what you've said.  The risk, as I see it, lands just as much on the person talking as the person listening; my concern is that our current culture seems to celebrate victim status a little too eagerly(see Jussie Smollett and the politicians that came to his "defense").
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 04, 2019, 06:16:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 05, 2019, 07:24:25 AM
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

And Brian Mulroney brought in Canada's first environmental protection act.

I did get to vote for Flora when I lived in Kingston.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 05, 2019, 07:26:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on July 05, 2019, 07:47:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 05, 2019, 08:16:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 05, 2019, 08:29:31 AM
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 was going to say . . . I know that in America conservatives have tried hard to co-opt those issues but having a military, federal borders, pride in country, improving your life through work . . . none of those are socially conservative in nature.

My thoughts on 'deplatforming'?  My thoughts are that speech should generally be free - but not free from consequences.  If you hold an incredibly unpopular position (this issue only seems to come up with positions associated with hate and intolerance), nobody should silence you.  At the same time, nobody should be forced to provide a platform for your comments - the host or owner of the platform you're expressing your message on has every right to decide that your message is unsuitable and kick you off.

Re: integration of Islam into western society

There are millions of Muslims in Canada who are well integrated into our society.  I believe that the same is true of the United States.  Islam is already integrated into western society.  What people tend to mean when they talk about 'integration of Islam' is that they don't like extreme conservative interpretations of the religion.  And that's perfectly fair.  I'm not a fan of extreme conservative interpretation of any religion.  It tends to make people do foolish and antisocial things.  This is true of muslims, christians, jews, whatever.  (I've yet to run across any extreme conservative buddhists, but I'm sure they're out there too.)  To argue that islam is somehow different than any other religion comes off as a little absurd though.

Personally, I think that most religious doctrine is stupid.  (Note, this isn't to say that religion itself is without value . . . discussing philosophy and grappling with issues of morality is perfectly fine.  The doctrine though . . .)  I don't really draw any significant difference between wearing a yarmulke, a turban, a cross, or a burka.  Is a Sihk man who chooses to wear his five articles of faith (turban, knife, bracelet, comb, and special underwear) being oppressed by his religion?  Why would you believe that a woman who voluntarily chooses to wear a niqab is oppressed then?   Even though I think they're a little goofy, I'd fight for people's rights to wear whatever symbols they please.  They are symbols of faith - faith I don't share.  Who am I to judge a practice that I don't believe in from a community that I don't belong to?

Where I draw the line is when faith starts to cause an impact on human rights.  If a Christian believes that it's OK to attack a homosexual man for his sexual orientation, that's over the line.  If a Muslim believes that he should be able to attack a man for drawing a picture of the prophet Muhammed, that is over the line.  Most religions rely on scripts and texts from thousands of years ago, which are products of the time they were written.  They need to be read and interpreted with that understanding.  If they're not, then the people who are following the religion invariably come off as idiots.  They should be free to be as idiotic as they want though, until they start to encroach on other's rights though.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 05, 2019, 08:38:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: JGS1980 on July 05, 2019, 10:47:52 AM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 05, 2019, 11:07:47 AM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on July 05, 2019, 11:38:07 AM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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'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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Telecaster on July 05, 2019, 11:49:19 AM

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.

Objectively, comprehensive sex education in schools reduces teen pregnancy and teens who receive comprehensive sex education delay having sex compared to those who don't. 

So, I'd say that social conservatives who oppose comprehensive sex education are the problem. 

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 05, 2019, 11:53:27 AM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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'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.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 05, 2019, 11:58:08 AM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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'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 agree with you that any parent should discuss sex and sex education with his or her children.  It should not be left up to the school system.  However, in the real world it is often left up to the school system.  That's why a comprehensive sex ed program in schools has proven so effective.


"After accounting for other factors, the national data show that the incidence of teenage pregnancies and births remain positively correlated with the degree of abstinence education across states: The more strongly abstinence is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rate. States that taught comprehensive sex and/or HIV education and covered abstinence along with contraception and condom use (level 1 sex education; also referred to as “abstinence-plus” [26], tended to have the lowest teen pregnancy rates, while states with abstinence-only sex education laws that stress abstinence until marriage (level 3) were significantly less successful in preventing teen pregnancies. Level 0 states present an interesting sample with a wide range of education policies and variable teen pregnancy and birth data [17]–[19]. For example, several of the level 0 states (as of 2007) did not mandate sex education, but required HIV education only (e.g. CT, WV) [19]. Only three of the level 0 states (IA, NH and NV) mandated both sex education and HIV education, but one of them (NV) did not require that teens learn about condoms and contraception. This state (NV) has the highest teen pregnancy and birth rates in that group (Figure 1). Nevada is also one of only five states (with MD in level 0, CO in level 2, and AZ and UT in level 3) that required parental consent for sex education in public schools instead of an opt-out requirement that is present in all the other states [16], [19].

The effectiveness of Level 1 (comprehensive) sex education in our nation-wide analysis is supported by Kirby's meta-analysis of individual sex education programs [8], Underwood et al. 's analysis of HIV prevention programs [27], and a recent review by the CDC taskforce on community preventive services [28]. All these studies suggest that comprehensive sex or HIV education that includes the discussion of abstinence as a recommended behavior, and also discusses contraception and protection methods, works best in reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194801/)


The facts clearly show that an opposition to a comprehensive sex ed program results in greater teen pregnancy and spread of sexual disease.  I'd challenge you, or anyone who disagrees to find any study that shows keeping information from children about sex leads to good outcomes.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 05, 2019, 12:01:00 PM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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 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.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wolfpack Mustachian on July 05, 2019, 12:39:30 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 05, 2019, 12:46:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 05, 2019, 12:52:08 PM

...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 think you're seeing this as a liberal position because the people you know who hold this opinion are liberal on other issues. If you disconnect the position from the people, is there any reason to call pacifism a liberal or conservative idea?

I could also say the Amish, Mennonites, & Jehovah's Witnesses are pacifist and very socially conservative, therefore pacifism is a conservative value. But I don't think that would be accurate either. Not every position can be classified as conservative or liberal.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 05, 2019, 01:16:53 PM
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.

2009 article after the first adoption:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/4379200/Mothers-anger-over-gay-couples-adoption-of-her-children.html

Quote
[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.

Quote
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.

Kind of besides the point, but the Mirror left some stuff out for sure. Makes me question the rest of the article, sounds like an odd situation though. Perhaps the social workers were too aggressive but I don't have enough information to have a strong opinion on that.

I suppose you can make the argument that forced adoption is a liberal idea but I don't think that it's a clear cut bad thing either.  Wouldn't you agree that a child should be forcibly taken from their parent if there is reason to believe the child is in imminent danger? Beyond that, it's a matter of what constitutes enough danger to act.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 05, 2019, 01:35:48 PM
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.

The article you posted says nothing of social liberals.  Can you provide a source that supports your assumption?

By their own words, the parents of the children show that they're homophobic bigots.  You appear to be assuming that because of their bigotry is the only reason that their children are being taken away.  I suspect that there's much more to the story than the linked article is revealing.  Like the heroin addiction of the mother.



I'm also thinking of Rosemary Kennedy, and how she was lobotomized.  There are many, many terrible parts of our past.

Performing lobotomies was at one point considered a legitimate medical treatment by the psychologists.  I'm not sure that I see why you believe that this is an example of social liberalism.  Can you explain?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 05, 2019, 01:36:57 PM
I'm also thinking of Rosemary Kennedy, and how she was lobotomized.  There are many, many terrible parts of our past.

Is a forced lobotomy socially liberal? According to Wikipedia Social liberalism is a political ideology that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights. A social liberal government is expected to address economic and social issues such as poverty, health care, education and the climate using government intervention whilst also emphasizing the rights and autonomy of the individual.

Forced lobotomies and eugenics(discussed earlier) do not respect autonomy of the individual. I wouldn't consider these policies socially conservative either, not everything must be one or the other.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 05, 2019, 01:39:53 PM
With the adoption story, it's the government coming in, taking and reassigning children when the grandparents were actively involved.  It's sick.  Sorry, I am getting off the topic of social liberal and conservatism, but this is about too much government power over the individual.

The idea that we discussed earlier that gay couples want newborn children concerns me. I do not want mothers to be forced to give up their children except in cases of abusive situations, with evidence.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 05, 2019, 01:44:32 PM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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 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 attempt its solution to every social problem? It Cannot solve every problem and it need not try.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Telecaster on July 05, 2019, 01:48:26 PM
  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.

Which are poor reasons not to teach them.

Quote
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 agree.  And if parents don't do it, not only are they doing their children a disservice, they are doing society a disservice.   Therefor society needs to try to make sure it happens. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 05, 2019, 01:49:46 PM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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 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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 05, 2019, 04:10:46 PM
I apologize if this was covered upthread... but I'm curious about the response around this concern


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
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 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.

 Actually yes, I thought of personal finance in the same context as sex education. Whatever the public schools teach, and we had a section on personal finance in Home Ec decades ago because I am a very old, it’s just the facts ma’am. That section of that class was about budgeting. Household budgets.
It was Just. the. facts.

It doesn’t internalize in children why you would save  for a rainy day, the freedom that money gives you, why debt is a soul sucking black hole of wrong, why Interest is The
Enemy. School cant teach those things because those are my values those are not universal values.Well the school teach that there is such things as “good debt? “I would take issue with that. With the school teach you should pay off your mortgage? There are many here who will take issue with that.

As far as social etiquette – is that actually an academic topic? Of course it isnt. It is perfectly fine that teachers guide children in the social etiquette of school. Every Social institution has a set of etiquette rules and children will learn that this particular school has this particular set of etiquette rules. I would be very careful about generalizing what the public school is teaching for all levels of society because it simply is not true.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 05, 2019, 08:54:32 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 06, 2019, 01:27:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 06, 2019, 08:55:12 AM
This place moves too fast for me.  Don't you people have jobs or something :)

My comment on borders/military was regarding very early civilization.  As long as we have had cities, we have had borders and a military.  And we still have them, so that suggests some utility and it's a pretty conservative idea imo.  Animals have herd lookouts, too.

There are archetypal ideas that align with the political left/right, for example, the left likes progress, new ideas, inclusion, empathy.   Conservative archetype reminds us of the Danger of the Other, which is why conservatives talk about borders and walls.  It's also why the pathology of conservatives leans towards exclusion, racism, bigotry, etc.  There needs to be a balance struck.  (the pathology of the left archetype is something like chaos/madness that results from no distinctions, like 60+ genders in NY).

But that doesn't mean the Other isn't dangerous.  Nature is a dangerous place and other people can be too.  An easy example is the proliferation of illness that occurred when the Europeans arrived in the New World.  We have an immune system for a reason.  This also brings in the idea of antifragility, which is a fascinating idea.

On top of this, the word "liberal" is often used to mean libertarian, but not all people on the left are libertarian.  Indeed, it's at least a two-dimensional platform:

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 06, 2019, 09:16:42 AM


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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 06, 2019, 09:42:42 AM
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?

And one big problem is that our society is expecting way way way too much of teachers. Classroom teachers should not be expected to teach all of these life skills,  they have academic subjects that they specialize in. That’s what I want them to teach, they are the experts in that.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 06, 2019, 09:48:56 AM
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

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 06, 2019, 10:15:35 AM


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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on July 06, 2019, 10:19:25 AM


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.

Liberalism as it is used in Europe is not at all how it is used in the US in everyday parlance. So yes, a significant potential source of misunderstanding. You would likely be hard-pressed to find many Americans who understand what liberalism means in a UK context.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 06, 2019, 10:53:01 AM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on July 06, 2019, 11:09:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 06, 2019, 11:32:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: TrudgingAlong on July 06, 2019, 11:40:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Roland of Gilead on July 06, 2019, 11:50:24 AM
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.

That pretty much sums up how I vote.   I lean liberal on most social issues but I get annoyed with some of the attempts by government to take over control of our lives.   A small demonstration of this is the soda tax in Seattle.   Control the way poor people consume while ignoring the double tall latte with whip cream that the rich consume.   Just fucking leave me alone is my view, which sort of is libertarian....certainly is not republican or democrat.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 06, 2019, 12:06:43 PM
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.
The authoritarian left also does this, but you may have a point.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 06, 2019, 12:10:03 PM
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 definitely agree with the bolded part, but I still think libertarianism can be separated from left/right.  At least I'd hope so because it would make this discussion a lot easier.  It might be worth trying to lay out the differences between left- and right-leaning libertarians.  Maybe I'll get around to it.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: John Galt incarnate! on July 06, 2019, 12:27:46 PM

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.

Broadly speaking, conservatives/classical liberals/libertarians tend to favor laissez faire more than statism.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 06, 2019, 12:46:48 PM
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.

Yes, you guiding your children in exposing them to a variety of ideas or “ views” is great because YOU are driving the train, giving them context, helping them learn. These latter things are more important then the varying views. Kids do not live in a bubble and they are going to get varying views no matter what.I’m sure you do steer them away from certain content that is not age-appropriate. Or maybe you don’t? Maybe you think it’s perfectly fine for five year olds to freely access rough porn whenever they choose, to name an extreme example.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 06, 2019, 01:17:51 PM
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.

Quote
I 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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 06, 2019, 01:42:10 PM
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.

Quote
I 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.

But yeah, specific biological facts of health and reproduction seem fine to me, I would not have a problem with that depending on—things.

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..
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 06, 2019, 02:05:41 PM

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.

Quote
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..

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.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on July 06, 2019, 02:22:23 PM

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.


Didn't the "tell me what you mean..." remark imply that there is some version she will agree should be taught, and explicitly invite the discussion of particulars?

Fwiw, I too like the school teaches it, but-parents-can-opt-out-for-now system. Though I think it should have a certain  facts required to be learned before graduation, to prevent die-hard abstinence-only parents from using the "not ready yet" objection to fully prevent their children's education.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 06, 2019, 03:14:50 PM
It's shifting the burden to me to come up with some particulars that then she may or may not disagree with.  I'm not interested.

And it's irrelevant to my point whether or not her and I can hash out some particulars. My point is something related to sex ed should be taught, and the local communities (school board, etc.) can decide what (including inputs from parents and such). The particulars don't interest me.

My point is I think something should be taught. Conservatives typically think it shouldn't be taught in school at all.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 06, 2019, 04:18:15 PM

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.

Quote
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..

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.

I am not much of a social conservative as I have said before, especially  when it comes to intellectual freedom issues,  and sex education is important In a child’s life. It is fine with me if it is taught in Public schools. I would want a lot more for my own children, however — nuances, specifics, and value laden.But if the masses get the standard government issued thing, well so be it.

One danger is parents expecting too much from that school experience, shifting their own burden to public school teachers.It is a poor substitute for education in the home although certainly teacher and parent instruction can and should complement one another.

I’m in my 60s and we had sex ( reproduction facts ) education in my public school as well as “ your changing body/ health” sessions way back then. It  isnt new.

 I would like to see children taught when they are ready to hear it. Efficient classroom management means it is as you say, the majority are ready for it on day X even though some of them needed it months or years before X while others are not ready on X and can be exempt.

I won’t address the idea that conservatives do not want sex education in schools because I’m not as confident as you are in painting with that broad brush.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 06, 2019, 04:42:41 PM
While certainly not all social conservatives want to keep sex ed out of classrooms, the resistance to sex ed (or the insistence on teaching methods proven to fail like abstinence) comes entirely from the social conservative side.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 07, 2019, 12:04:21 PM
Basic biology and reproduction is fine, but I think what conservatives fear are the things that go far beyond that.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 07, 2019, 12:40:15 PM
Basic biology and reproduction is fine, but I think what conservatives fear are the things that go far beyond that.
Like what?

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: PDXTabs on July 07, 2019, 01:23:41 PM
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.

FWIW my school started sex ed in 3th grade, which would have made the class 8-9 years old.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 07, 2019, 02:51:52 PM
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.
I was a  Suburban kid in a rural state, not a farm kid.

The farm kids knew plenty before I did. I didnt watch PBS animal mating shows (did they even  exist in the 1960s?)   And maybe I just didnt want to think about penises entering vaginas at that age. Is that ok?

 That said, by 13 or 14 I was reading Lady Chatterley’s  Lover and The Well of Loneliness (seminal lesbian literature in case you dont know) as well as the standards of Jane Austen, the Brontes, , Madame Bovery, etc.

 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 07, 2019, 03:25:17 PM
You could devote a life to study of Victorian literature and never fully grasp the mechanics of sex.  Like, you would be pretty sure that sex is dirty/bad, but beyond that?  It was a weird era.  :P
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 07, 2019, 03:47:52 PM
Basic biology and reproduction is fine, but I think what conservatives fear are the things that go far beyond that.
Like what?

Non-reproductive stimulation, explicit use of birth control methods, gender identity studies and pro-gay lessons.  Basic biology is OK.  When it gets both edgy and political, it's a harder sell because it has the potential to interfere with the family's values and religion.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 07, 2019, 04:26:35 PM
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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 07, 2019, 07:13:49 PM
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?

When I was first teaching (mid-70s) my most popular class was the female reproductive system (note this was vertebrate physiology, not human physiology).  I learned to plan for really short lectures, because all the girls had masses of questions at the end of class.

But really, the time to teach the basics is just before puberty hits, because at that point it is interesting but academic, their hormones have not kicked in.

And I know an anecdote is not data, but my room-mate when I gave birth to DD (late 1980s) was a teenager who had not had any sex ed classes, came from a very strict religious background as did her boyfriend, and I think she got pregnant the first or second time they had sex - they had no clue what they were doing.  They got married, but they were only 17 or 18, just finished high school (grade 11 in Quebec then) and were about to start CEGEP.  She was putting it off for a year but I have no idea if she ever got back to school, or what he ended up doing in the way of a job, and how the marriage did. So many strikes against them.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 07, 2019, 08:22:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 08, 2019, 01:10:33 AM
I think I was four years old when I first saw a ram mount a sheep (and about the same age when I was forced to cut a lamb's throat - I cried). Being able to keep sexual activity obscure is a strictly urban phenomenon. Which is funny, since so many social conservatives favour speak so fondly of Ye Olden Days On The Farm when men were men and women knew their place and all that bollocks. Like the progressives talking about the conditions of the farm animals, their ignorance of reality is embarrassing.

You can teach the mechanics of things without teaching whether those things are morally right or wrong.

This is why ideology is stupid. I mean that in the literal sense of stupid, being unable to absorb information. Ideology says we should do X or not do Y regardless of whether it works. Failing to teach children about sex, and teaching merely abstinence and not teaching about contraception, leads to higher rates of unplanned and teenaged pregnancies than teaching them about sex and contraception.

It's like the lefties denying physiology and the righties denying climate science, you can spend a lot of time sticking your fingers in your ears going "la la la I can't hear you!" yet reality marches on.

Social conservatives are not always wrong. Progressives are not always right. It's just that progressivism is fairly noisy at the moment so it's not socially acceptable to laugh at it. If social media had existed in the US in the 1980s then anybody mocking Christianity would have got into the same drama that someone mocking LGBT/etc gets into now.

I laugh at conservatism and progressivism, because both of them ignore reality when reality is inconvenient. They'd both rather be right than successful.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 08, 2019, 05:09:02 AM
^^I agree with you but am confused about one thing - you wrote  "It's like the lefties denying physiology".  What physiology are they denying?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 05:13:27 AM
I'm confused why people keep bringing up 'progressivism' in a discussion about social conservatism and social liberalism.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 08, 2019, 06:44:21 AM
I'm confused why people keep bringing up 'progressivism' in a discussion about social conservatism and social liberalism.

Maybe every time someone does that, a reply needs to be

progressivism=/= liberalism           ?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 07:04:51 AM
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. 

I'm a little confused about this comment.  If the mechanics of reproduction have been taught, there's no need to mention abstinence at all, is there?  Failing to introduce sperm to an ovum will never result in pregnancy.  Those 12 words cover the topic in it's entirety.

I'm also confused by the statement that abstinence is a 100% effective method.  It's demonstrably not.  Abstinence only education has been demonstrated as the least effective method of preventing teen pregnancy.


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.

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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 08, 2019, 07:06:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 07:48:51 AM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 07:52:54 AM
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.

+1.  I was offended (but didn't say anything) when my nephew's parents started telling him that he was gay.  When he was around 8-10 years.  (Note, I do not know my nephew's sexual preference at this time, at age 14.) That is wrong and inappropriate for an adult to tell a child their orientation, particularly for a child who is not yet past puberty. Why label a child or even joke about a child's future sexual preference?

There are extreme people (parents and doctors) who are doing gender reassignments on kids before puberty, before the kid has the legal ability to consent.  They say it's important to do it before puberty.  Puberty-suppression, drugs. I think that making a life-altering decision for a child at an early age is 100% wrong.  To me, it's very California-crazy vs. my Midwestern sensibilities.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FrugalToque on July 08, 2019, 07:59:19 AM
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.

They have these charts in doctors' offices that show ten or twelve different b.c. methods, from the pill and condoms all the way down to spermicide and (always at the bottom) abstinence.
The chart has two columns, one for "perfect use" and one for "actual use", with the percentage effectiveness of each method.
For instance, condoms are 97% effective when used properly, but only 92% in actuality, because humans suck at birth control.
In the abstinence row, it says "100%" for perfect use and under "actual use", they leave it blank, or put "N/A".  I think that's bullshit and incredibly misleading.
If you rely on abstinence to keep teenagers from getting pregnant, the result you get is neither "100%" nor "N/A".

Toque.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: JGS1980 on July 08, 2019, 08:00:49 AM

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.


What’s more expensive?
1. Provide free condoms
2. Provide 18 years of childcare for the child of someone who could not afford (or was unwilling) to buy Condoms.

The data is pretty clear on this one.

The point here is to do WHAT WORKS, not to impose a value judgement on teenagers who haven’t really thought things through yet. Don’t you remember being a teenager?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FrugalToque on July 08, 2019, 08:01:06 AM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 08:04:49 AM
Don’t you remember being a teenager?

I was a nerd.  Still am.  Life was easy.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 08, 2019, 08:08:27 AM

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.
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".
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 08:09:50 AM
This is where parents have a lot of different viewpoints, and all parents should be respected. Some parents will throw their underage kids beer parties and co-ed sleepovers and think it's cute.  Some parents will basically encourage their kids to be sexual they are old enough to handle the responsibility.  Some parents think there is no responsibility. 

But not all parents are like that, and not all parents raise their kids to be sexually active before adulthood.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 08:11:07 AM

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.
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".

Withdrawal is definitely not abstinence, btw.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 08, 2019, 08:18:16 AM

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.

Irrelevant

Quote
Teens 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.

Quote
If 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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FrugalToque on July 08, 2019, 08:19:33 AM
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.

Quote
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.
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
See Antifa.  I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.
Not sure who this is.

Quote
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.
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.

Quote
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.
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Jim Fiction on July 08, 2019, 08:26:58 AM

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.

Irrelevant

Quote
Teens 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.

Quote
If 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.

To add on, sometimes its not as simple as "going to Target". Maybe there isn't a Target (or equivalent) nearby. Plus condoms do cost money, which a teenager may or may not have. Some places ask for I.D. when purchasing condoms, etc... So access isn't as easy as KBecks makes it out to be.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: FrugalToque on July 08, 2019, 08:29:29 AM
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.
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".

Except the stats on "harm reduction" for sexuality are clear on the fact that it does work.  States that used "abstinence only" education have much, much higher teen pregnancy rates than state that use proper sex ed.  The states that use good sex ed?  They also have teenagers who wait longer for their first penetrative sexual encounter.  These are only correlations, but they are very strong correlations.  It makes sense that giving teenagers accurate information allows them to make better decisions.

Of course, overpopulation is complicated.  It's about poverty and infant mortality and lack of female freedom.  But it's also about our inability to be good at abstinence.

Yes, teenagers make bad choices.  Our job is to give them all the information and resources, to get them to prepare themselves, so they make better choices.

Not sure what your anecdote is intended to convey.  Anyone using withdrawal as birth control is clearly uneducated.

Toque.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Jim Fiction on July 08, 2019, 08:33:52 AM
Quote
See Antifa.  I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.
Not sure who this is.


You aren't missing much:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/3/20677645/antifa-portland-andy-ngo-proud-boys
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kris on July 08, 2019, 08:35:20 AM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Jim Fiction on July 08, 2019, 08:37:16 AM

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.

Maybe we should require mustachianism be taught in schools, that way teens could afford to have sex.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 08:50:15 AM

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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Roland of Gilead on July 08, 2019, 09:02:49 AM
I support sterilizing both males and females until they reach age 21 and pass a drug test plus take a mandatory parenting class.

Wonder where on the political spectrum that places me...
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 09:29:29 AM
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. 

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.


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. 

This is a weird thing to get upset about.  (FWIW, I agree that it's a bit ridiculous.)  But did this 'authoritarianism' lead to a ban on actors playing gay or disabled people?  From what I'm aware it's largely a non-issue.  People who walk regularly play people in wheelchairs.  People who are straight regularly play people who are gay.


They don't like cultural appropriation, which smells an awful lot like the puritanism of the right.

Agreed.  But again . . . tempest in a teapot.  Cultural appropriation happens all the time.  It's incredibly rare that any impediment to it has come up.  Contrast this with teaching children abstinence instead of proper sex ed.  This reliably and measurably increases teen pregnancy.  It's not rare at all.  I feel like you're trying to make two things that are not at all equal, seem equal here.


They want to ban people like Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson from speaking.  They set off fire alarms, release stink bombs, etc. 

I already addressed this upthread.  There's nothing wrong with lobbying a person who owns a platform to remove speakers you consider objectionable from that platform.  That's using the same free speech that the objectionable speaker is using.

Setting off fire alarms, releasing stink bombs is way over the line though.  That's edging into coercive / terrorist action, and should be condemned.


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.

Antifa is not representative of social liberalism.  They are left wing extremists.  Again, contrast with mainstream social conservatives.  The ones who want to prevent education in schools that reduces teen pregnancy.


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.

Really?  In this thread we've got people advocating for proven poor education that leads to higher teen pregnancies in the name of social conservatism.  Nothing to do with transgender anything.

But, since you brought it up, what do you think is better for a child in a confused/transitional state?  To openly discuss the spectrum of human sexuality exists, so that they know that these feelings are natural and normal and can make up their own mind . . . or to pretend it doesn't exist and leave the children confused?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: DadJokes on July 08, 2019, 09:29:43 AM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 09:42:24 AM

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.


This is the punishment narrative though.

Handing out condoms is not remotely the same as condoning sex.  But it does reduce the 'punishment' of pregnancy.

We know that kids will have sex.  We can provide them with condoms so that their sex will result in far fewer teen pregnancies and abortions.  But we won't do that because the teen pregnancy and abortion is being thought of as punishment for the sin of sex.  This punishment can then what, serve as a deterrent to others?  (Even though this deterrent demonstrably doesn't work.)

That's pretty gross reasoning, but at least it explains why social conservatives act to increase teen pregnancy.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 09:59:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 10:02:18 AM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: sherr on July 08, 2019, 11:21:18 AM
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.

Sex education neither "expects" nor "promotes" nor "encourages" sex. It "educates" you about it, nothing more.

This is a basically the difference between conservatives and non-conservatives on this issue. Every anti-sex-ed conservative I've ever talked to gets their wires crossed about it and cannot get beyond the belief that "education is promotion!"
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 11:27:03 AM
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.

Agree completely.


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.

This is where the problem arises.  I don't expect kids to have sex or experiment with sex.  I have data that tells me a certain (pretty large) percentage of the population will though.  I don't want to promote sexual activities in children.  I do want children who are already having sex to do so without being forced to deal with a choice of getting pregnant or dealing with an abortion.


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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 11:29:29 AM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 08, 2019, 11:49:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 08, 2019, 11:55:30 AM
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.

Quote
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.
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
See Antifa.  I don't think Andy Ngo would describe his recent brain hemorrhage as an indication of inclusivity.
Not sure who this is.

Quote
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.
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.

Quote
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.
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.

Authoritarians on the left killed the kulaks by the millions.
 They scream people down and incite anarchist violence, like antifa.  They are eager to paint people like Shapiro as Nazis.  They bring garrottes to Jordan Peterson protests and smash old, historical university windows.  They try to lock conservatives in a room with a chain, they hit people with bike locks, they affect organizations like Google who have been shown to have a left wing bias as per Veritas Videos.

Those people are the chaos of the left and they are also dangerous.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 12:05:29 PM
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.

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.

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?

What is the 'libertarian axis' you're referring to?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 12:11:08 PM

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: KBecks on July 08, 2019, 12:13:17 PM

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.

I think it would fall under a disorderly conduct type ticket.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 08, 2019, 12:34:16 PM
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. 

 
Quote
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.

What is the 'libertarian axis' you're referring to?
[/quote]
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 08, 2019, 12:35:23 PM
The libertarian axis is what I posted a few posts back, that left/right is a separate axis from authoritarian/libertarian.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 12:41:48 PM

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.



Not everyone has a family physician*.  Even the ones that do, often do not have the ability to simply call up and make an appointment with a doctor.  Not everyone's parents are supportive of their children having sex.  Not everyone's parents are supportive of their children being gay, and even the ones who are likely do not have experience with gay sex.  Even if they do, not all parents are comfortable talking about this information with their children.

All together, this indicates that a large number of people will simply not be taught to make emotionally and physically healthy choices by your plan.  So, again . . . it seems that what you want to do will result in failure to achieve the stated goals.  Why then, do you think this is a better plan than education through schools?




(* Frankly, there are some huge issues with the idea of foisting the responsibility of educating a child about sex onto a doctor.  It's a tremendous waste of their time, radically more expensive, and not something that doctors are trained to do.)
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 08, 2019, 01:31:30 PM
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.

What values, you ask?
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.

I agree with this if you allow me to add a word or two : [good] Sex education neither "expects" nor "promotes" nor "encourages" sex. It "educates" you [well] about it, nothing more (where “well” and “good” include curriculum  individually tailored to the minor.) i have nothing against that.

And for the record, I would likely think is fine for my (theoretical) child to attend these public school information sessions because even if not exactly the right information at exactly the right time, my kid will be well adjusted enough to take what is useful and leave the rest. Then I would, at home, supplement what is needed.

Some real facts about teenage pregnancy is that many teen choose it. Or at least, they are not proactive in preventing it. They very well know what causes pregnancy. They have access to birth  control. But they choose to have a baby because babies are the norm at home, those are the values of their family and culture. The book that really opened my eyes to this and one I mention often is “Promises I Can Keep” about teenage single mothers in the urban underclass. Those values spread ipwards into middle-class land. Not good.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 02:04:48 PM
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.

Nobody is saying anything about your teenager - as you mentioned, we don't know your kid.  That's why, if you want to keep your kid from learning about sex in school (for whatever reason) you have that option.

What you shouldn't be able to do is prevent other children from getting this education.  Because you don't know them.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: iris lily on July 08, 2019, 02:13:52 PM
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.

If that is the standard thing, ok. I will take your word for it.

Quote

What you shouldn't be able to do is prevent other children from getting this education.  Because you don't know them.

Yes,, that is a good point. This education will be fine for some kids, not so much perhaps for a few others, but those latter ones are not the problem of my immediate sphere of responsibility.

Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: jeninco on July 08, 2019, 04:14:44 PM
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.

After quite a bit of thought about this, and nonjudgmental discussion with a surprising number of people in real life, who grew up all over the US and various other parts of the world, I've about decided that "know your own kid" should be a guiding principle.

But also that ALL kids should be educated about the basics of how sex works, what the more common variations are (i.e. gay/straight/??), why what they see online is unreal, and, yes, how to apply a condom. With practice (on a broomstick, duh): no condom is going to apply itself, and it's fairly important that it be used correctly, whenever it is that you use it. Also discussion about respecting other people's desires, being able to communicate clearly, and the advantages of various types of birth control, including abstinence.

Because even if you're in bucket 1, your kid may not be -- and even if s/he is now, at some point sex and desire are likely to happen, and having some basic knowledge is never a bad thing.

And FYI, condoms in person at drugstores cost about an hour's work (or more) at tipped minimum wage per package of 3 - 6. If you're a high school student, that's a meaningful amount, and you still have to walk in , take it off the shelf, (or ask for it, if it's behind the counter), pay the cashier... if you're living in a place where that's going to get back to your disapproving parents, that's a big deal for a teenager. (I happen to think that if you can't go to the store and buy your own you shouldn't be having sex, but I don't deeply disapprove, so my kids don't have that fear.)

If the overarching concern is to prevent unwanted and teen pregnancies and STDs, condoms should be readily available, and everyone should know how to use them. It's another kind of harm reduction: you can continue the conversation about values, but meanwhile STDs aren't being spread, and pregnancies aren't occurring. And, seriously, preventing people who are not you from accessing reliable birth control is just another way of controlling young people, and female people.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 08, 2019, 05:50:55 PM
^^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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 08, 2019, 06:03:26 PM
^^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.
Your sick gains with the barbell aren't socially constructed?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: arebelspy on July 08, 2019, 06:24:13 PM
^^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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 08, 2019, 06:34:36 PM
^^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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: MasterStache on July 08, 2019, 06:41:07 PM
Man, evolution really fucked up our brains as teenagers didn’t it? I mean the part of the brain that processes independence and social acceptance develops far more rapidly than the area that comprehends and processes possible outcomes and consequences. Probably best if we simply educate, yet also plan for the “worst” in terms of teen behavior.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: madgeylou on July 08, 2019, 06:43:45 PM
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.

Exactly. I was in Bucket 1, I knew I wasn't ready for sex, and no amount of being taught what condoms are for and how to use them was going to make me have sex any sooner. This was also true for all my nerdy friends. Later, when I was ready, I was glad I understood the basic mechanics of how it all worked. We didn't get any education about consent back then -- it would have been great if we did.

On the other hand, the HUGE AMOUNT of education I got about all the different drugs in 1980s America DID make me determined to do hallucinogens when I grew up, and also to stay away from crack, so mixed results I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 10:28:22 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: MasterStache on July 09, 2019, 10:48:07 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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.

Warren never attended Harvard. She was however a professor of Law there starting in 1995. I am not left but I sure am not offended over something you made up. Speaking to actual facts I am not offended at all by her heritage. Someone dressed as a Nazi on Halloween is highly offensive to me. I guess you and I have vastly different ideologies. Mine aren’t really political either. To each their own I guess.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: EvenSteven on July 09, 2019, 10:50:34 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 10:58:39 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 11:35:16 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 11:38:52 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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.
Your examples are definitely authoritarian.  Wearing blackface is accepted to be bad.  A Scandinavian teaching yoga, not so much. 

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: EvenSteven on July 09, 2019, 11:39:33 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 11:46:41 AM
^^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.

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.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 11:48:14 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*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.
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: EvenSteven on July 09, 2019, 11:56:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 11:56:55 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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.
Your examples are definitely authoritarian.  Wearing blackface is accepted to be bad.  A Scandinavian teaching yoga, not so much. 

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.

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.


As far as Warren being hired 'as a Native American' . . . Reagan's former U.S. Solicitor General, Charles Fried, who was part of the committee that put Warren in a tenure position at Harvard said in a written statement that her ethnicity never came up during the process.  What evidence do you have that he is lying?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: mm1970 on July 09, 2019, 12:00:01 PM
Quote
Should 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?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 12:13:21 PM
^^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.

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.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 12:14:07 PM
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.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

It's interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 12:16:20 PM
Quote
Should 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?

There was a thread about Semenya.  She was born a woman, has female genitals (IOC inspected and approved - which . . . ugh that must have been fun for all involved), but produces more testosterone than most women.  She has been banned from running competitions by the authorities unless she submits to have her natural hormone levels changed chemically.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: BicycleB on July 09, 2019, 12:19:49 PM

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?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*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.
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.

There is evidence reasonably suggesting that she did acknowledge her ancestry, but not evidence that she mentioned it during application or promotion processes. In other words, it appears that she didn't "play" any game, or use her ancestry for advancement.

Re State Bar of Texas, where her ID acknowledged native ancestry: "Warren filled out the information card after being admitted to the bar...there's no indication it was used for advancement."

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/16/17983250/elizabeth-warren-bar-application-american-indian-dna

Same report: "The Boston Globe took a deep dive into whether Warren's identification as a Native American contributed to her rise in legal academia. Reporter Annie Linskey's investigation determined it had no bearing on Warren's hiring at distinguished universities, including Harvard."

Here's the Boston Globe article:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2018/09/01/did-claiming-native-american-heritage-actually-help-elizabeth-warren-get-ahead-but-complicated/wUZZcrKKEOUv5Spnb7IO0K/story.html

It says she mentioned her ethnicity three years after being hired. That doesn't sound like someone using her ethnicity to get ahead. Is that the game you think she was playing? (Or am I missing the deep game being played there?...wouldn't be the first time I missed something.)

I had supposed she was either trying to be honest when asked, or mentioning it in hopes that her testimony would be encouraging to other people with Native ancestry. Is that a foolish assumption, even though it fits the facts about when and where she disclosed?


Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 12:24:39 PM
"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)

Orwell said that socialists don't care for the poor, they just hate the rich.  This territory is dangerous.

From Road to Wigan pier:

The truth is that, to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we', the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them', the Lower Orders. On the other hand, it would be a mistake to regard the book-trained Socialist as a bloodless creature entirely incapable of emotion. Though seldom giving much evidence of affection for the exploited, he is perfectly capable of displaying hatred—a sort of queer, theoretical, in vacuo hatred—against the exploiters.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 12:28:35 PM
^^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.

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.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 09, 2019, 12:28:52 PM
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.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

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-claims

Quote
"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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 12:33:15 PM
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.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

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-claims

Quote
"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.
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.

Edit: you allege she didn't understand that.  The distinction not being a hiring factor is an allegation.  Those are not verifiable in retrospect. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 12:52:49 PM
^^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.

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.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

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.)
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: MasterStache on July 09, 2019, 01:00:53 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*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.
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.

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!
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 01:01:29 PM
^^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.

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.
Should a transgender woman (born male) be allowed to compete with women in physical domains like powerlifting, MMS, etc?

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.)

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. 
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 01:03:34 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*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.
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.

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!

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 01:15:36 PM
"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.

Then we have established that these are not clear examples of authoritarianism as was previously stated.  Whether the person is wearing blackface, or is dressed up as a zebra . . . it doesn't change the actions in either case.  So I am again confused where you are seeing authoritarianism.


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)

Illegal acts, are illegal.  I've already said that people who pull fire alarms should be both condemned and prosecuted.  Not sure what you're looking for here.

I don't agree with your equating resisting oppression with 'destroying people'.  Ghandi (as an example) resisted oppressors, labelling them as such without ever resorting to violence.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 01:21:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RangerOne on July 09, 2019, 01:21:55 PM
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.

I don't this is a notable problem. Even at my much younger age, one result of colleges using race as an element of admission was most counselors recommending that you identify as a minority (if at all arguable) as it can boost your admission odds. Even you happen to be a distant relative of someone of native american, Latino, black, or Hispanic background or whatever, you are often advised to identify as the one more likely to be admitted. Even up through early 2000, everyone pretty much knew if you could identify as something other than White or Asian it might be beneficial...

Its a silly thing to nitpick against. Is it morally wrong. I think its somewhere on par with taking advantage of any gray area rules to gain a slight advantage. The real moral wrong is probably to allow race to be a factor in admissions at all.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 09, 2019, 01:36:54 PM
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.
Is this just snark?  If there wasn't any truth to it, she wouldn't have apologized a few months ago. 

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-claims

Quote
"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.
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.

Edit: you allege she didn't understand that.  The distinction not being a hiring factor is an allegation.  Those are not verifiable in retrospect.

Correct, her intent and prior knowledge is not verifiable. But the notion that it played a role in her hiring has been refuted by an in depth investigation and the people who hired her. Perhaps verifiable wasn't the best word choice as a person's word cannot be verified, but if the people who did the hiring say it wasn't a factor, what more could you ask for?

Do you still find it "interesting that she isn't being protested, or deplatformed" with the new information presented in this thread? Do you really expect anyone to protest her based on the possibility that she may have had dishonest intent in something that likely didn't benefit her at all? Even with very reasonable explanations as to why she did it?

Also, the 1.6% figure is misleading. Even direct descendants and tribal members can have very little genetic linkage. It's entirely possible to be descended from Native Americans and have 0% linkage. She never should have taken the genetic test as the results are not something most people understand. 1/32 native does not equal 3.125%, it's much more complicated.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 01:55:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Wrenchturner on July 09, 2019, 02:03:07 PM
I'm going to conclude my posting in this thread.  I believe I've made my points clearly enough.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 09, 2019, 02:54:09 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: MasterStache on July 09, 2019, 05:45:09 PM
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.

Whatever sticks to the wall I guess?
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 09, 2019, 10:01:35 PM
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."
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 10, 2019, 07:10:45 AM
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."

This appears to be a confirmation of my previous statement then?  You do not understand what gender is, and have confused it with sex.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: madgeylou on July 10, 2019, 07:52:12 AM
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.

Nah. It's a view that understands the limits of science (at least at this point) in being able to explain a TRUE, LIVED phenomenon.

Science is INCREDIBLY influenced by beliefs and if you don't get that, spend half an hour on Google looking up what scientists have said and still say about the intelligence and strength of non-white-dude-type people throughout history, all the way up to the present day.

ALSO. Prescription drugs are primarily tested on men. Cars and airplanes are designed primarily for the average man to fit in properly (as any woman with a big chest trying to comfortably wear a seat belt can tell you). Plan B doesn't even work on women above a certain body weight. The entire world up to this point has been engineered for the accessibility, safety, and opportunity of privileged and powerful people. And it's discriminatory, influenced by belief, and also completely sound according to "science."

Nature/genetics is one thing, and nurture/environment is another, and subjective internal experience is another. Moreover, all three impact each other.

In a quest for one tidy logical thought to rule them all (which I see all the time in the nerd-heavy makeup of these boards) y'all end up over-simplifying reality. And what gets edited out in those over-simplifications is the perspectives of everyone who's not already in the middle of the circle.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Sibley on July 10, 2019, 08:08:41 AM
I'll be honest and say that I haven't read through all 9 pages. However, I've been thinking about the initial question and came to an opinion. It's taken a while.

Those who resist correcting an injustice are always wrong. What the injustice is, who the resisters are, the reasons why - really don't matter. If an injustice exists and you don't want to try to correct it (or at least lessen it), then you are wrong. Social conservatives may or may not have a greater number of instances of this, but they certainly don't have a monopoly. I'm sure that examples can be cited for any group of people where they were wrong.

At root, I believe that fear is a major contributor. If you change X, then your life might be worse. If Y changes, then you might have to admit that you were wrong. It's not easy to do, and that explains why so many people have a difficult time changing.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Davnasty on July 10, 2019, 08:28:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 10, 2019, 08:36:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 10, 2019, 06:11:43 PM
Kyle has a point about data sets though.  I have Invisible Women:
Data Bias in A World Designed for Men
by Caroline Criado-Perez on hold at the library. I heard her being interviewed on CBC -very interesting.  And discouraging.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 10, 2019, 07:42:58 PM
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. If Chantal doesn't want to vaccinate little Jaxon and he dies of influenza, that's a tragedy for the family but doesn't impact the world much, so long as he doesn't take some unfortunate immunocompromised person with him.

But denying climate science is going to fuck us all up, big time. And it is disproportionately fucking up the people who never benefited much from fossil fuels anyway. At least if NYC got flooded they had good lives for decades first, but it's more likely Bangladesh will be flooded, and most of them never even owned a light bulb.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: GuitarStv on July 11, 2019, 07:40:07 AM
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?

Gender:  Either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones. The term is also used more broadly to denote a range of identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female.

Race: a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society.

Both have large social/cultural components and neither term denotes a clear cut 'physiological reality' as you've claimed.  So, I'd argue that people can be transracial.  Indeed, in this thread you're the only one making the claim that they cannot.  Transracial people have been around for a long time.  The Nazis (as the first example off the top of my head) liked to identify themselves as Aryan even though few of them were from the Indo-Iranian area that is historically recognized as the location Aryan people originated.

I feel like the question you're really trying ask though is different from what's written.  You seem to be upset that society treats someone who is trying to express themselves as transgender differently than someone who is trying to express themselves as transracial.  Is this what you're trying to get to?



Why can I identify as a person with different organs, but can't identify as a person with different skin colour?

You can't identify as either.  If you have a third lung, that's a measurable and concrete difference.  If you have darker pigment in your skin, that's an observable and measurable difference.

What are the measurable characteristics of 'race'?

I have brown eyes, brown hair, pale skin, and a big nose.  My ancestry is Polish, English, Scottish, German.  My culture is Canadian.  Scientifically, what race am I?

My son has brown eyes with epithelial folds, pale skin, brown hair, and a small nose.  His ancestry is Polish, English, Scottish, German, Chinese, Filipino, Spanish.  His culture is Canadian.  Scientifically, what race is he?

The more you research into the concept of race, the more you see that there's no scientific definition to hold onto.  Depending on who you talk to, it's based loosely in various mixes on observable differences, culture, and ancestry.  There's certainly no 'physiological reality' to be had here.



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.

This one's easy.  You're allowed to ignore internal physiology because it doesn't apply here.  (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/))

The problem you're running into is bad initial assumptions.  Race isn't scientific at all.  Don't believe me?
- How many races have been scientifically identified?
- What are the defining characteristic differences between races?
- What happens when races intermingle?  Which race is the resulting offspring?

These questions do not have exact scientific answers.  There isn't even a scientific definition of what race is.  Without defining something, it's not possible to begin scientific examination of that subject.

Because you've simply assumed that race is scientific though, you've come to incorrect conclusions about it.

This is very different than the large amount of research that exists regarding climate change to which you're comparing 'race'.  No scientists are claiming that climate change is a social construct.  It exists, it's real and measurable, and we have defined various contributing factors.


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.

Again, this example is not science denying.

Gender is largely a social construct.  A person can't change their sex . . . it's a  biological reality that they're born with.  You've got XX or XY chromosomes at birth, and that's never going to change.  You can change your gender though, as that's not a scientifically defined, measurable thing - it's predominantly cultural.  Using the two words interchangeably really only demonstrates an ignorance of the topic being discussed, and you're smarter than that.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: RetiredAt63 on July 11, 2019, 10:54:26 AM
To add to GuitarStv's comment - 
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. 

Sex - we have  XX and XY (poor truncated chromosome) plus variables on them - XXY, XYY, etc.  For mammals; other vertebrate groups determine sex differently.  Plus developmental variability.  A male mouse fetus will have larger testes if his immediate siblings in his mother's uterine horn are males.  With cattle, if there are twins, one of each sex, the female is likely to be sterile because of exposure to her brother's testosterone in utero (this doesn't happen with us, there is better separation in the placenta and fetal membranes).

Variability -  anyone who has done lots of dissections (or surgeons, veterinarians) knows that there is variability in the basic body plan - nerves and blood vessels are not always where they  "should" be.  I knew someone whose sternum was reversed in concavity.

So the point of this is, there is all sorts of variability that basically goes under the radar.  Sometimes it becomes visible (like when we type our blood).  If I am about to get a blood transfusion, it doesn't matter whether the donor is male, female or other, or has different pigmentation - what matters is the ABO/Rh/Kidd/Kell/Duffy/MNS/Lewis match.

Society tends to take groups and lump them, while ignoring the outliers.  But the outliers do exist.  And who/what is an outlier depends on what criteria we are ussing.  If blood group was obvious, then AB- people would be a very small visible minority.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Samuel on July 11, 2019, 11:19:17 AM
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. 

At this point it's a jaw droppingly silly criterion. At least modern racists seemed to have moved from espousing biological superiority/inferiority to using race as a sloppy stand-in for cultural stereotypes they don't like (and refuse to see in their own racial group). That's... progress? Maybe?

I've basically come to regard racists as just a particular subset of a larger group: assholes. They're the dumbest, most superficial variety of asshole.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Gin1984 on July 11, 2019, 11:58:33 AM
Quote
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.
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.
Those are examples of societal policing which is authoritarian.

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?
My mistake.  She was hired, not a student.  The rest stands.

*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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
Post by: Gin1984 on July 11, 2019, 12:06:24 PM