Why do we assume socially conservative = "backwards", Is this ultimately argument by

[OrangeEmpire]

Why do we assume socially conservative = "backwards",
Is this ultimately argument by intimidation?


When exposed to views opposed to homosexuality, abortion, feminism, immigration, multiculturalism or other liberal views, is your initial reaction that the person so opposed is "backwards," "barbaric," "unenlightened," "uninformed" or otherwise ignorent or stupid. Worse yet, do you think them openly bigoted or hateful?

I'm sure many don't. But many do as well. Why?

What is it about liberalism that makes it more "advanced" than conservatism? Couldn't one conceivably argue the opposite: That liberals are foolish for attacking or drastically changing social relationships and institutions that have formed the backbone of western civilization for centuries? I don't necessarily hold that opinion myself, I merely introduce it for consideration.

The line that conservative or reactionary views are "backward" strikes me as disingenuine. It's like arguing by ad hominem attacks or by intimidation (only morons hold view X, do you?) Especially from those who pride themselves on precisely the advanced nature of their thought, I think I can expect better.

I'm not saying embrace social conservatism. But if it is to be opposed, it should be done so for the right reasons: logic, humanitarianism, evidence, experience. Simply calling the other side names doesn't cut it.

 

[GVF]

I think I'll wait on OWB and theRealUT before I jump in this one. I'd rahter strike second. Your proposal can be played either direction though. A stout conservative will see a blooming idiot as pointless and aimless. A wanderer looking for something to support. Scared to stand in the light. Floats with the masses. Dang it!!

 

[J.Quest]

How about that homosexuality, for starters, is not natural and is therefore the recipient of conservative fire.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Yep. There are many who think any viewpoint different from theirs is essentially stupid.

 

[USMCvol]

Why do we assume socially conservative = "backwards",
Is this ultimately argument by intimidation?


When exposed to views opposed to homosexuality, abortion, feminism, immigration, multiculturalism or other liberal views, is your initial reaction that the person so opposed is "backwards," "barbaric," "unenlightened," "uninformed" or otherwise ignorent or stupid. Worse yet, do you think them openly bigoted or hateful?

I'm sure many don't. But many do as well. Why?

What is it about liberalism that makes it more "advanced" than conservatism? Couldn't one conceivably argue the opposite: That liberals are foolish for attacking or drastically changing social relationships and institutions that have formed the backbone of western civilization for centuries? I don't necessarily hold that opinion myself, I merely introduce it for consideration.

The line that conservative or reactionary views are "backward" strikes me as disingenuine. It's like arguing by ad hominem attacks or by intimidation (only morons hold view X, do you?) Especially from those who pride themselves on precisely the advanced nature of their thought, I think I can expect better.

I'm not saying embrace social conservatism. But if it is to be opposed, it should be done so for the right reasons: logic, humanitarianism, evidence, experience. Simply calling the other side names doesn't cut it.

Yes these strange "backward" views are the same views the majority of the nation had for 300 years. Social conservatism isn't a change from the norm liberalism is, and the social changes the United States went through in the 1960s-1970s are the very reason conservatism became a viable political force.

 

[CSpindizzy]

What determines natural though? I am not defending homosexuality in any way but would like to know what that definition is. Because if it is what occurs in nature, there are many species that you will see two same gendered species having some sort of 'relations' with the other.

 

[CSpindizzy]

So does this mean if it is a viewpoint that existed long ago, it is considered right? Superior?

 

[OrangeEmpire]

From another argument.......

Well from my perspective social conservatie policy objectives seem to want to take us "backwards" to some imaginary judeo-christian nirvana from the 1950's. It is not just their efforts to hold us in place or avoiding change, it's also the effort by some on the right to take us back from advancements we've made as a society that really irks a lot of us on the left. It's their tendency to put dogma and theology over science. Even worse it's their tendency to want to force their dogma and their theology on to me through their policy.

Excellent example of what I'm talking about. Not to knock any one, but phrases like "hold us in place" or "take us back from advancements we've made" that prompted the initial question.

Some wonder, myself at times amongst them, if the breakdown of the family, the declining influence of the church and the retreat of individual responsibility in the face of "social" responsibility really constitute "progress" at all.

There are legitimate questions that can be raised pertaining to moral reletivism, the breakdown of gender roles and cultural norms. This doesn't mean those things absolutely should not have happened, but I think the consequences of rapid social change need to be thought through a bit more than they have been. To borrow the phrase of the Sierra Club, "Not blindly opposed to progress, but opposed to progress that is blind."

Brando:

Because it's "us against them" and no one is willing to accept that both view points are needed.

Exactly. I think a healthy polity needs both the voices of change and the voices of preservation. Excessive social conservatism isn't a good thing either.

 

[USMCvol]

What determines natural though? I am not defending homosexuality in any way but would like to know what that definition is. Because if it is what occurs in nature, there are many species that you will see two same gendered species having some sort of 'relations' with the other.

This is where liberals and conservatives have a different world view. I am not saying homosexuality is a un-natural act. Nor would be muder or incest. (I'm not equating homosexuality with murder btw) Conservatives belive in right and wrong. These values are sometimes attributed to religion or even culture. Man should not look to nature for instructions on how to behave. Perhaps, if snails pefect agriculture I may change my opinion.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Going back to ways of doing things that didn't work the first time isn't the best antidote to things that aren't working all of that well now.

And ... maybe it's where I'm from, but if you do even question a lot of the social change that's taken place in the last forty years, you are often branded reactionary, theocratic, fascistic or whatever.

Conversely, I don't think the liberals were wrong to want to make some of the changes they've clammored for over the years. Organized labor, civil rights, civil liberties, feminism, the welfare state and increasingly gay rights were all perfectly fine things to advocate.

Each was an answer to problems that have (and sometimes still do) plague society at one time. I guess my objection comes from those things becoming dogmas too. In truth, each of the above "solutions" has presented its own problems, and the far left has done just as much to stifle debate and real progress by branding dissenters from liberal views as reactionary hicks.

It's a two way street IMO.

But you can turn it around, and anybody who advocates a progressive view point is declared an "elitist" or even a "liberal"

, which is used like a insult here in the states.

Well I'm certainly not trying to assert that all advocacy of progressive ideas is dogmatic or elitist or whatever. I personally think that one can hold to either conservative or progressive ideas in a reletively open minded or closed minded manner.

Being open minded becomes more difficult the further from the middle you go, IMO, but even then it isn't always a bad thing. While we all like to make punching bags out of extremists, they do serve a purpose.

Possibly the reason is because many people in *American* society do not believe in personal responsibility, and have joined in the "if it feels good do it" movement, they want to be able to have freedom without consequences, they don't want to have to answer to anyone, they don't care if their behavior affects society, all that matters is that they can do as they please...

When "religion" or "conservatives" try to set standards, they are getting in the way of peoples fun and that is bad *from the populations viewpoint*, they are like children who never grew up *look at who's running/ruining the education system* and they want to do whatever feels good.

But a society without structure will fall apart, rules and guidelines are needed for stability, what we do does affect other people.

There has to be a line between too authoritarian and too permissive...

 

[CSpindizzy]

Liberals don't believe in right and wrong?

Also keep in mind slavery was attributed to religion and culture as was the treatment of women and Blacks in our history.

Man should not look to nature....considering we are part of it, that would not make sense.

 

[J.Quest]

What determines natural though? I am not defending homosexuality in any way but would like to know what that definition is. Because if it is what occurs in nature, there are many species that you will see two same gendered species having some sort of 'relations' with the other.

Good point. Natural is a bad word here b/c it does occur in nature. Maybe I should have said "by design"...but then again, by using that I'm sure to invite the creation vs evolution arguement.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

As far as I can tell "social conservatives" are trying to regulate/limit other people's personal behavior. And from slavery to the blue laws, it doesn't work.

I'll be Capt Obvious!

That is what defines a society.

Unless you are really advancing the concept of a society that would allow me to come into your home, kill you, take your stuff, whore your wife out, and rape your children.

No? Don’t like that idea?

Then you too are for ‘regulate/limit other people's personal behavior’ Then we are only discussing where and what the limits should be.

And yes they do work, these rules. When people do but two things:

Acknowledge that these rules and limits do exist.

Understand that when breaking them, there will be some consequences

And the only true conservatives left, the libertarians, agree. Hmmmm...really.........


http://forums.nightly.net/index.php?showtopic=44090&pid=1293038&st=0&#entry1293038

 

[USMCvol]

Going back to ways of doing things that didn't work the first time isn't the best antidote to things that aren't working all of that well now.

And ... maybe it's where I'm from, but if you do even question a lot of the social change that's taken place in the last forty years, you are often branded reactionary, theocratic, fascistic or whatever.

Conversely, I don't think the liberals were wrong to want to make some of the changes they've clammored for over the years. Organized labor, civil rights, civil liberties, feminism, the welfare state and increasingly gay rights were all perfectly fine things to advocate.

Each was an answer to problems that have (and sometimes still do) plague society at one time. I guess my objection comes from those things becoming dogmas too. In truth, each of the above "solutions" has presented its own problems, and the far left has done just as much to stifle debate and real progress by branding dissenters from liberal views as reactionary hicks.

It's a two way street IMO.

But you can turn it around, and anybody who advocates a progressive view point is declared an "elitist" or even a "liberal"

, which is used like a insult here in the states.

Well I'm certainly not trying to assert that all advocacy of progressive ideas is dogmatic or elitist or whatever. I personally think that one can hold to either conservative or progressive ideas in a reletively open minded or closed minded manner.

Being open minded becomes more difficult the further from the middle you go, IMO, but even then it isn't always a bad thing. While we all like to make punching bags out of extremists, they do serve a purpose.

Possibly the reason is because many people in *American* society do not believe in personal responsibility, and have joined in the "if it feels good do it" movement, they want to be able to have freedom without consequences, they don't want to have to answer to anyone, they don't care if their behavior affects society, all that matters is that they can do as they please...

When "religion" or "conservatives" try to set standards, they are getting in the way of peoples fun and that is bad *from the populations viewpoint*, they are like children who never grew up *look at who's running/ruining the education system* and they want to do whatever feels good.

But a society without structure will fall apart, rules and guidelines are needed for stability, what we do does affect other people.

There has to be a line between too authoritarian and too permissive...

I could not agree more. As a society we place too much value on majority rule. Let me explain...Just because 51% agree with _____ does not mean its correct. While there is no better way to rule a country, mob rule is bad, whether in politics or in regard to social policy.

On the point of liberals/progressives not having bad intentions, I also agree. Lyndon Johnson had terrific intentions with the "Great Society". But he (and other liberals) failed to realize government solutions to problems make matters worse.

 

[GVF]

What determines natural though? I am not defending homosexuality in any way but would like to know what that definition is. Because if it is what occurs in nature, there are many species that you will see two same gendered species having some sort of 'relations' with the other.

The Demo mascot is the Donkey. Right?! Your ever seen one male Donkey blowing another. It's against the naural order of their own mascot. A true liberal will choose an ameoba as their mascot so they can just go F*** themselves.

 

[GVF]

Good point. Natural is a bad word here b/c it does occur in nature. Maybe I should have said "by design"...but then again, by using that I'm sure to invite the creation vs evolution arguement.

Or, you could have said God created man. From man he took a rib and created woman. He gave the woman to the man as a helpmate. No records of him creating no queers. Liberal or Conservative, if you don't butter your bread on the other side, it's by your choice.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I take it you've never seen a male dog mounted on to another male dog and both accepting it?

 

[J.Quest]

I take it you've never seen a male dog mounted on to another male dog and both accepting it?

This thread has really digressed...

however, I haven't seen two grown male dogs mounting each other...just puppies...and they'll hump anything that moves.

 

[GVF]

I take it you've never seen a male dog mounted on to another male dog and both accepting it?

Well, retards aren't limited to just the human race. :crazy:


Seriously, I think we try to impose too much from either side. Thst's why we're headed down the crapper. Regardless of beliefs, policies that cut down the middle in moderation truly appease both groups with room for individuality.

 

[GVF]

This thread has really digressed...

however, I haven't seen two grown male dogs mounting each other...just puppies...and they'll hump anything that moves.

It's just getting started. just some light hearted side bars to make a point. When a few select others get here, this thread will cause some serious flaming in here.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Exactly....

I think one can be very conservative but still not be so radical as to cut off the other side from debate or even call their ideas idiotic.

 

[TheGimp]

Well, both sides have stereotypes created by the other side.

Take this ad for instance

YouTube - Famous Club for Growth PAC TV Ad About Howard Dean

 

[allvol123]

So does this mean if it is a viewpoint that existed long ago, it is considered right? Superior?

No. But at the same time just because a viewpoint has existed for a long time does not mean it should pushed down or demeaned because it is considered "old" and outdated.

Obviously, slavery was a bad idea and abolishing it was a good idea.

I think groups that feel they are shunned nowadays try to piggyback onto this idea. The so called progressives.

 

[volinbham]

I think your original point is dead on OE. The progressive view assumes a position of moral superiority yet violates its core tenets of tolerance on a repeated basis.

It's been suggested in this thread that social conservatives operate via regulation of behavior. So does the progressive side. "Non-believers" are viewed as people to be helped despite their backwardness. This too is a form of control. Social policies (from taxation, hiring policies, education policies, etc.) can all be tools to enforce a progressive agenda.

 

[CSpindizzy]

"Progressives" gave blacks the rights to vote and not be forced to the back of the bus. They also gave women the right to vote and actually participate in government. You paint a broad stereotype of progressives as being evil.